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

[themodernleader]

The difference between Obama and Clinton is the difference between a learning and a learned person. Obama trusts people and respects facts and reality based ideas to mold his decision making. His views grow with new information. Clinton has already learned that people are essentially no damned good and can not be trusted or depended to present good advice. She already knows what has to be done, so stay our of her way or be trampled or left behind.

[OhPlease2007]

Obama & Hillary: Of Political Illusions & Overly Slick Images

C'mon now, lets not do the old, Obama is purer routine again. The guy stumped for the people of Illinois, they elected him, then he turns around and wants to be president; considering that he has very little experience in foreign policy, THAT's real chutzpah for you! Obama made promises to the people of Illinios that he would represent them, then turns around and blows them off to be President? C'mon! LOL

Obama is to inexperienced to be jaded by politics, but Obama is just as much a political opportunist as Hillary is.

And both Obama and Hillary are spouting pie-in-the-sky 'change' rhetoric but they have yet to show us how they are going to PAY for all that, 'pie in the sky.'

My advice to Obama or Hillary supporters is, when they both only want to show you their right hand in their illusion game, be sure to look at their left hand, as well.

I'm sorry but Obama and Hillary come off as too 'slick' for me. John Edwards is the only one that seems sincere to me; I'm voting for John Edwards.

[RusStyles]

Every vote for Edwards is a defacto vote for Hillary. He's like the Ralph Nader in tis...So,i­f you few Edwardian addicts want to see the Clintons occupyng the WH go ahead and split the vote and get ready for a Hillary smackdown in the GE...Then another four years of Rethugs...

[Misanthrope2]

Obama's campaign lied to his supporters. What does that say about how smart they think the supporters are?

[Rhydderch69]

Poor research, though plausible -- by December '03 the media has finally come around to writing obits for the Lieberman campaign.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-11-lieberman-campaign_x.htm

But yes, keep 'spinning' your datapoint.

[keno07]

Regardless of what the pundits said . Senator Obama will win the nomination. Wait and see .General election will be fine because he is going to win some of southern states.

[Superfelo]

O, but polls are extremely accurate! The 1980 election was called two minutes into the counting, according to exit polling(You can look it up!)
Ronald(The Gipper)Reagan was the "winner".
But somehow the exit polling system broke down in '00. It was surreal. I like the consistency of Obama's numbers. From where I sit that seems to bode well until the votes are counted.
Thank you very much.

[Menemshasunset]

liveon- You, "can't stand that Hillary has felt entitled to this job and that she's the inevitable winner." What evidence do you have that she has felt entitled? You haters just throw these things out of Republican spin- No one works harder than she does- Clinton has missed fewer votes than any of the other candidates by big numbers- She is running day and night to get it all done- like many woman. According to a review of the Senate voting records-Hillary Clinton is more progressive then either Obama or Edwards was. Deal with facts please- otherwise it is harmful to all of us.

[HopevsHate]

What evidence to you have that Hillary is Progressive?? Please do deal with facts.

[Menemshasunset]

Liveon-

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=NYI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=72&y=9

By any standard Hillary Clinton is one of the most progressive members of Congress- I know it doesn't fit your paradigm but facts are facts- get used to it.
Stop hurting our party-Read today's NYTimes article on what informed Hillary Clinton's politics- She's the real deal no matter how the far left and the far right spins it- You have completely bought all the bs from the last 15 years- Please don't throw dirt without knowledge- Support whomever you choose but don't hurt members of our own team-please-I beg you.

[OhPlease2007]

"Hillary Clinton is more progressive then either Obama or Edwards was."

Now THAT is T-H-E comedic line of the 2008 presidential election!

THE most progressive blog is DailyKos; I think you will have a very hard time of convincing THEM that Hillary is a, 'progressi­ve.'

In fact, I think you will find that John Edwards is considered the most progressive at DailyKos.

Hillary Clinton ... Progressive; that's a good one!

In my opinion, the only thing Hillary is 'progressive' at, is, increasing her campaign cash coffers and lobbyist influence.

[Menemshasunset]

Daily Kos -are you talking about their opinion? Give me a break- Please read the new book by the NYTImes political expert Mathew Bai- "The Argument" Go by the facts- Look up all the records of the candidates- Edwards might be speechifying what you want to hear now, afterall-he's a trial lawyer and is very good at it-check out how he really voted-no so much of a progressive compared to Clinton-

[eugenegerard]

I won't support HILLARY

BECAUSE

She voted for the WAR!
She voted for The Patriot Act!
She voted for the Military Commissions Act!
She voted for the Credit Card and Banking Bill!
She voted for CAFTA!
She is a corporatist.
She is not a true Democrat.
This is not Republican spin.
Hillary is Repug-Lite.
These are the facts.
Every vote has been wrong.

No More Clintons

No More Clintons

No More Clintons

[liveon]

I am not responding to Republican spin, I just read EVERYTHING! I find her to be one who will do anything to get a certain voting block, like the Miami citizens who hate Castro, or the pro war hawks. But starting earlier, I was very suspicious of any woman who let her husband throw her under the bus the way Bill did. She possibly held on for future political gain, and I'm not wanting to support that type of power lust. I do believe that Obama's time is right now. Ten years from now he will be beaten up by the beltway and he'll no longer be the independent thinking person that he is today.

[liveon]

I'm hoping that Al Gore gets in the race. I can't stand that Hillary has felt entitled to this job and that she's the inevitable winner. Love Obama, but after reading this I feel discouraged. But he is in the right ball park when he suggested that Hillary is Bush-Cheney lite. just read Andrew Sullivan's blog regarding how Hill is right in line with the Bush policy regarding Cuba. She is such an old guard polititian who is anything but fresh nor authentic.

[Rhydderch69]

There's a lot of you -- in fact, about 15% of the national polls -- who are still lined up for Al Gore.

It's another big question that poll analysts neglect -- which way would the Gore supporters break.

And which way would they break if he endorsed one of the insurgent candidates (as he did in 2004)?

[lafrance]

Clinton is polling on her name. but, the media insists she is the nominee right now and primaries are over.
So what do you expect, Arianna? for obama to fold up his tent because Hillary has been given a totaly free pass and the media is insisting she is inevitable. Just like her out of date neocon foreign policy thinking was trashed by many of the FP elite but, oops! the media forgot to report that.
they prefer to frame her a experienced. And Obama has none. In truth, Obama was a constitutional law lecturer. Concidering what the constitution has been through these past 6 years, that is an important qualification.
Pluse his 8 years in the state senate where he worked on successful health care reform (hear that hillary)plus many important legislation.
But, if the media wants to discount this and count Hillary's 8 years of waving, maybe we should also run Barb Bush, Nancy Reagan and Rosalyn Carter. they have just as much experience.
But, the way the media insists on playing unfair and then pretend to be confused because the polls are showing what they are, of course the campaigns have to talk to worried supporters.
Maybe if the media played fair, started to vet Hillary, ect., campaigns would not have to deal with supporters who are worried or upset.

[paulrevererides]

Well designed polls reflect what people think at the time they are polled. At this point national polls are accurate but meaningless. If Clinton wins Iowa she will probably win New Hamshire, the polls will remain about where they are now, and she will win the nomination easily. If, as I predict, Obama wins Iowa, he will probably win New Hamshire, and the nomination. If Edwards wins Iowa, which is possible but increasingly unlikely, he and whoever is second (and possibly a close third) will battle it out in New Hamshire and (if Edwards loses in New Hamshire) South Carolina. In short - if Hillary wins Iowa she will win the nominaton. If Obama wins Iowa he will probably win the nomination, but will have a real battle if Clinton then win's New Hamshire. If Edwards wins Iowa he's in a two or three way race for New Hamshire and South Carolina. Now, could we turn for a moment to Iraq? All evidence on the ground shows that the so called surge has done nothing. More Americans are being killed this year than last, the Government has accomplished nothing in re reconciliation, and MORE IRAQUI CIVILIANS ARE BEING KILLED TOO. The claim of progress is totally bogus. To say that security is up and violence is down in Anbar may be true, but when the exact opposite is true in Iraq as a whole it is meaningless bull shit. Every Democratic offic holder and supporter, and especially these candidates should be screaming this to the high heavens. THERE IS NO PROGRESS. OVERALL, THINGS IN IRAQ ARE WORSE, NOT BETTER. The Republican plan is to hold on in Iraq until a Democratic President ends the war ( and he/she will) so when the chaos comes (as it will) they can we lost a war they could have won. Meanwhile, the loss of another thousand or so more American soldiers, tens of thousands of terrible injuries, and tens of thousands more Iraqi civilians deaths - worth it. How stupid can we be? CUT THE FUNDING AND START GETTING OUT NOW.

[HumeSkeptic]

As we all know, a poll is accurate only for whoever is ahead in that poll.

That's the nature of polls.

[HopevsHate]

I'm 47 years old and had my very first "authentic" poll call during the '06 election cycle. The pollsters are using the most readily available data right now and are calling the declared Democrats that are 4/4 voters and haven't moved in the last 5-10 years. The polls mean absolutely nothing at this point in the game and I would venture a guess that the author of this article know this. Current polling data represents the older Democratic Party base, not the newer Dems and the young voters.


Obama '08

[Menemshasunset]

I'm shocked that this is on HuffPo- that's what I'd worry about if I was Obama- Wow-this is a major, major event-
Hurray for Arianna- you are trying to be fair!

[jeffmorgan]

I didn't get the sense that invoking Lieberman in the email was intended to highlight his common war support with Clinton. Of course, John Kerry 'voted for the war, before he voted against it,' more similar to Clinton.

And polls, yeah, of course if you look at a thermometer every day this week and use that to predict the temperature in 3 months...

Iowa poll reliability example:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/IAIATopDems.php

[repubesnivel]

This kind of shit points up Obama's inexperien­ce...he puts his foot in mouth too often.

I like him, but he's not able to handle the complexities of campaigning, much less the world.

[jeffmorgan]

http://bp0.blogger.com/_MRs_Nt465oE/Rq4nPmh29_I/AAAAAAAACDI/eJ0J_Uf7bgs/s1600-h/TopDems2004.png

Say again?

[Rhydderch69]

Not clear whether it's Obama putting his foot in his mouth, or Hillary flip-flapping to score political points.

Lovingj is, of course, an Obamaniac, but the footage is out and public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

Sad thing is, this sort of hypocrisy will come back to haunt Hillary in the general -- "you supported negotiations before you opposed them," "you showed your leadership by promising to nuke Bin Laden in his tent (just as you and Bill spent million dollar missiles to kill some camels)" and "you seem indecisive about pursuing OBL into Pakistan."

Money in the bank for Romney or Giulani.

[MPeter]

I would have taken your criticism of Obama seriously if you showed me you evebn understand what you are saying. Obama is smarter and understand the world ten times than you, and all the other candidates rolled together. He is coming, like it or not. So deal with it.

[dr4Will]

Obama continues to show his immaturity and inexperience--by 2016 he might be ready --he surely isn't there now!

[Ottovbvs]

Polls are not a joke. The above comment by Lis suggests she has never been in the polling business or if she was it was not with a respectable polling organization like Gallup. Of course it's possible to load polling questions but not on an issue as straightforward as voting choice. Gallup and most of the organizations who conduct these polls are commercial businesses and their reputations depend on the quality of their process. All the poll scoffers are basically supporters of candidates other than Clinton who is obviously so clearly in the lead and for so long it's hard to see how she doesn't become the nominee. I think we can be assured if their candidate Obama or Edwards or whoever was in the lead they'd be saying how wonderful the polls were.

[jeffmorgan]

The are when used to try to make predictions.
In 2004 primaries and caucuses:

Iowa, 42% decided who to vote for in the last week
New Hampshire, 54% decided who to vote for in the last week.
South Carolina, 54% decided who to vote for in the last week.

Percentage of people who decided who to vote for over a month before voting, you ask?
Iowa: 30%
New Hampshire: 26%
South Carolina: 20%

Data from Mark Blumenthal, http://www.pollster.com/blogs/

[Rhydderch69]

Now, the thing to add to this: Hillary is, in essence, an incumbent -- she gobs of name recognition and a record that voters know, for the most part.

The thing that should concern Wolfson and Penn is that a large proportion of the late-deciders have had a very long time already to make up their minds about Hillary.

[Rhydderch69]

No question the polls are useful. And the numbers don't seem inaccurate. What I find objectionable is the way the polls get spun by the cocopuff media.

Looked at closely, the picture the polls give are of a front-runner who is well-known and only marginally liked, against a number of other candidates still working to solidify their image in the public eye.

The reason the Clinton campaign and the media would be well advised to avoid the 'inevitability' meme is that Clinton herself struggles with incumbent's disease: undecided voters are not undecided about her -- if they aren't supporting her now, after 8-12 years in the public eye, it will be a struggle for her to get them to support her later.