Your post misrepresents the purpose of polling, obviously to support this inane article. Polling indicates to campaigns where
they are weak or strong, where they may need to focus more of their time and resources. To conclude that more money was spent to find out what to say to different groups is ridiculous.
Clinton is the one who repeatedly changes her campaign theme. Obama's message seems to be
consistent, in comparison.
To imply that Obama's mesage is not consistent with his practice is not supported by this post. Seems like a cheap shot, to say that YOU know why his campaign spent more money on polling vs consultants.

This is a stupid and misleading headline. It implies that Obama is the one who is more swayed by polls. But all this really means is that Obama spend more collecting data. And it makes perfect sense. If he sees which states he's strong in and with whom, then he can focus on the states where he's not strong and on groups that he's not strong with. That's the value of polls. But all the Obama haters will say that this is evidence that Obama's politics are shaped by polls. If anyone is guilty of that, it's Hillary Clinton. Here you have a woman who voted for a war knowing that it was wrong and based on bogus intel, but she voted for it anyway. Why? Because the polls told her that voting against it would hurt her approval ratings. That's not the kind of president we need. A real leader votes based on principle, not polls.

Re More Female Donors to Obama-
We don't think with our vaginas, so we don't vote with them either (nor blindly support one because she happens to possess one).
I was disgusted- Once again with NOW's Endorsement of Clinton, and their sexist response to Kennedy's endorsement of Obama.
But what should we expect for an organization that ALSO HASN'T REALLY DONE SHIT FOR US IN 35 YRS!
I don't give a shit if you are female/male, white/ Black/Green, Muslim/ Christian/ Jewish. Hindu, Buddhist/ atheist...Do You Know or have a reasonable solution to our problems- are you ready to kick Corporationists out of OUR GOV'T and Homes. And regain the country we were given? LIFE LIBERTY & THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, was written for the indidviual citizen not for the Multi National corporations benefit- They are exactly the entities our foudning Fathers set down those Priciples to KEEP OUT of our lives- Monarches with LOGOs

Sen. Obama got it exactly right tonight.

Hillary Clinton has lately been loudly proclaiming her fealty to the Democratic Party's best traditions on human rights.

However, just two years ago, Hillary--the purported "expert" on international relations--said there should be "lawful authority" for torture in some cases.

(See, for example, www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Hillary_and_torture_audio_version.html)

Her immoral stand was opposite to that of every other major Democratic presidential candidate in 2007-2008, and the heat she took for it caused her to make one of her famous "flip flops."

So much for her being "ready to go on Day 1."

More like not ready for prime time ...

MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN

Obama has more female donors because he has more small donors. Clinton is financed by a few fat cats. Obama is raising money from $100 donations. It's called grassroots. He has them, she doesn't.

What a stupid article. The imbecilic nature of what passes for journalism never ceases to amaze me.

The writer takes one fact, that Obama takes polls, and extrapolates that he is "poll driven". Never once does Stein indicate a single position that was altered by polling.

A politician who doesn't take polls is like a driver without a map. Obama had 22 states to cover in one day. Don't you think he used those polls to indicate where to campaign and where to spend money? Only a fool would lay out millions of dollars without surveying the field.

Arianna should be ashamed of having trash like this on her blog.

FRAUD on Voters by The Nation and Chris Hayes, Part 1 (Obama violates international law)
http://representativepress.googlepages.com/FraudNation.html
(video)

No suprise here. Obama's donor are about a half of a million individuals. Individuals have genders. Clinton's donors are mostly artificial entities like PACs and corporations which are ungendered.

I think this is just one more example of how Obama is talking a good game about "change" and a different kind of politics, while actually being very status quo.

All fine and dandy to throw stones, but not when you live in a glass house.

http://aslanstruth.blogspot.com

Watching the Repub Primaries is like Social Studies class where you learn about ancient cultures and try to pretend like you care

This is one of those articles that won't matter a bit, irrespective of the "true details". Of course Obama uses polls. Of course Clinton uses polls. It's a political campaign.

And, for that matter, what is wrong with trying to find out what's on "the electorate"'s mind? Virtually everybody that posts on Huff is delighted to see the polls that say Bush sucks and we need to get out of Iraq (those so delighted include me). There is nothing inherently evil about polling. (And please, you out there who feels compelled to point out that it *is* evil when done by a Clinton, just chill).

The only thing that gives this story any juice is that Obama has referred disparagingly to Clinton's use of "poll-tested positions" and whatever. Let me tell you something incredibly secret: if Obama becomes President, his staff will, from time to time, run polls to determine the public reaction to his policies. The technology exists -- he would be delinquent in his duty to the country not to use it. This *doesn't* mean that he would necessarily change his positions because of poll results, but at least since Kennedy polling has given Presidents hints about how ready the nation is to move in their desired direction.

And, generally, this has been a *good* thing. Just look at the last eight years for an example of what happens when the Pres ignores the polls.

Oh, so is Obama a hypocrite for slamming Clinton for using polls? No, he is a politician running for office. She is vulnerable to the charge, because both she and Bill have been reactive to poll results in the past. Myself, I kind of liked that -- why would I not want my elected officials to be responsive (within limits) to majority opinion? But she's unquestionably vulnerable, and when you're running for office, you do want to point out your opponents weak spots.

Polls? You mean the polls that tell you how you are expected to do in a state and who is supporting which candidate?

Amazing. Why would the YOUNG, UNKNOWN candidate need to poll people for who they are voting for more than the RECOGNIZED, FORMER FIRST LADY? Boggles the mind.

Without having read any comments by other posters here, I have these two things to say:

Number 1, it makes sense to me that Obama would need to spend more on polling this past year, given that he has not been using polls as long as Hillary Clinton has been.

Number 2, as this post points out, Hillary Clinton gets a lot of her money from big corporations that have a lot of influence.

So, lastly, I conclude that the Obama campaign's excellent grasp of the grass roots' yearning and support, might just blast him up to the nomination -- right fast.

Please remember that Mark Penn's polling fees are not included in Hillary's total. I bet of the $1.5 million she owes him, several hundred thousand would be for polling. Based on how he's running her campaign in the ground, I can't ascertain what else he is doing on her behalf.

Sam, Sounds like the BO campaign is using that Bush Spin again, yet the supporters don't want to hear that. The preacher man can do no wrong, and when he does, they are shocked! Shocked, I tell ya!

Kinda like all of those televangelists....