Obama Double Digit Lead in New Hampshire
The latest CNN-WMUR poll found Sunday that Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa is likely to result in a victory in New Hampshire as well. According to this poll, he has now opened a double-digit lead over his main rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
39% of likely Democratic primary voters said they intend to vote for Obama, against only 33% for Clinton. This means that Obama has gained 6% in just one day time, while Clinton lost 4% in the same amount of time.
Clinton isn’t the only loser according to this poll though: Senator John Edwards lost 4% as well. He’s now at 16%. That’s still a third place, but it also once again makes one wonder why Edwards is running in the first place.
What I find interesting about the entire Obama-phenomenon is that he’s all about change, but no one knows what change he’s exactly talking about. He’s one of those politicians who are able to get the support of the majority of the masses because he tells them what they like to hear (which always worries me) and because he makes them feel good about themselves and their country. A commenter at CNN illustrates this point:
the people are sick of politics of fear and exploitation. we reject all of that and are looking to the future on a message of hope and change. i have read a lot about obama and watched most of his videos on youtube, and he is exceedingly inspirational. if you care most about healthcare and vengeance and status quo, then hillary is your girl. but overall i want a president who will lead on change, fix the problems and declare that america is back. that’s why obama has my vote in the virginia primary.
“That America is back”? Why, was it ever gone then? I don’t know but as a Dutchman I think that it’s fairly safe for me to say that I’m talking for many more foreigners when I say: we didn’t notice that the US was gone. It seemed to me that the US was and still is very active indeed.
“Who will lead on change”? What change?
“Exceedingly inspirational”? Nice. You’re inspired to do what exactly? And – inspiration is nice, having a good foreign policy is even nicer.
What that comment illustrates to me is that Obama’s supporters support him because of how he talks. How he presents himself. He pushes all the right buttons. But even his supporters – or at least this one – seem to realize that Clinton is the one who’ll actually get things done.
It’s fascinating to see this happening. Especially as a foreigner. Suddenly you see an entire country – or at least roughly half of it – rallying around one person, not because he has such a good record, nor because he knows what he’s talking about with regards to foreign policy, but because… well… because he puts it so darn well.
Fascinating to see this happening.
I promised one of our readers to be a bit more objective from now on with regards to how I write about people like John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, but I have to say that I have a hard time understanding why people are so easily impressed by mere words, and don’t look through the, pardon the language, BS. Obama is indeed inspirational, but you’re not nominating a potential Inspirer-in-Chief but a potential Commander-in-Chief.
Ah well.
It’s a fascinating phenomenon, especially for someone like me; who’s looking in from the outside. If Obama indeed wins in New Hampshire he’ll have the momentum going even more, which will make it even more interesting for me to read and write about this awkward Obama-phenomenon.
Meanwhile, Pamela Leavey writes at The Democratic Daily that rumor has it that John Kerry will endorse Obama soon. Pamela doubts it, because her contacts told her that this is not the case, but I wouldn’t rule it out.
From a previous post:
Well, it only took you, let me check….about 6 hours to return to looking at the polls lol. I don’t blame you BTW, I said the same thing about polls some days ago and am still paying attention.
As to your opinion of Barack himself, a couple of things. You say he’s an empty suit, but if you look a little more deeply than YouTube you’ll see he has laid out quite a few positions. What is legitimate is to say that most people do follow Barack on the basis of lofty ideals of hope and cooperation, and don’t really know the nuts and bolts of his positions most of the time. Though it does seem to be available online, I admit that it’s the responsibility of the campaign that people aren’t really aware of what he’s actually planning to do.
You do draw a distinction that I believe is incorrect. You say:
No, that’s not quite right. First of all, I’m fairly certain that if you asked your average Clinton supporter why they supported her they’d say something like "because she has the most experience" or "because she’ll be able to stand up to the Republicans" or something along those lines. If you actually asked them about her policy positions, I’ll bet that besides something vague about health care, they wouldn’t have much of a clue about what she plans on doing. Another thing to keep in mind is the matter of trust. If you don’t trust a candidate, like many of us don’t trust Clinton, it doesn’t matter if she gives us a 3 hour lecture on her policy positions and plans, because you don’t really believe she’ll actually do the things she’s saying she’ll do.
Lastly, I find interesting that you remark on how this following of Obama seems strange to you since you’re looking in as a foreigner. This might give someone the impression that the world feels similarly. Of course we all know that the European and much of the African press has all but endorsed Obama already. In Spain, people are actually hoping for Obama, even if they rather doubt the Americans will vote for a black candidate (anti-American press).
I don’t know whether that’s completely true Lynx. Yes, the European press is positive about Obama, but the same goes for Clinton. At least in the Netherlands, the people actually prefer Hillary Clinton. Polls were conducted and published two days ago – 78% of the Dutch wants a Democrat to win, and the majority of them wants Clinton to win.
Now, you also have to realize that although Europeans may wants Obama (or Clinton!) to win, and there certainly is very positive press coverage, that has always been the case. They always pick one Democratic (or two) candidate, and they root for that person. But it’s less personal than the way the American media report about it. In effect, they root for Democrats because they think that they’ll restore the good relationship with Europe and that they’ll adhere to a foreign policy which is more in line with Europe’s than with Bush’s.
If you talk to Dutch people, it quickly becomes clear that they think positive about Clinton and Obama not because of a message of something as vague as hope, but because they’re convinced that their foreign policy will be, in the eyes of the Dutch, better and less confrontational. In other words: it’s about policy to them. Very specific policies even if you talk to some.
Having said that, I should’ve written "as a Dutchman looking in" – I realize that Spaniards are more emotional than we are and are, as such, more open to emotional appeals (last time I checked your campaigns are a bit different than ours as well).
History has already been made. Illinois Senator Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson placed fourth. But did they really earn their finishing positions? The answer may be surprising. In the now past ABC New Hampshire debate before the January 8th first-in-the-nation primary, the rules were that only the candidates who finish in the top four slots in Iowa could participate, meaning that second-tier candidates who placed fourth could live on to continue their campaign another day. In the last hours before the Iowa caucuses Obama, who wanted to pad his victory and hedge his bets, approached Joe Biden with this proposal:
In precincts where Biden had a local official loyal to him, and if Biden wasn’t viable, then Senator Biden would tell his organizers to move his supporters over to Obama en mass. Conversely, in precincts where Obama had more than enough supporters, he would lend people to Biden to ensure Biden a fourth place finish so that he could continue on.
Joe Biden actually considered the proposal. An anonymous source close to Biden told the Washington Post that the strategy could be "viability for victory."When the media found out, Obama’s camp admitted that the conversation took place. Biden, who when asked about the proposal at a campaign event said that the deal could "probably" help both campaigns; however he later rejected the deal on "moral grounds," a source in Biden’s Iowa organization told the Rev. Rob Times on condition of anonymity. History recorded that Joe Biden placed fifth in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race.
On January 4, the day after the caucus, the New York Times reported strong rumors that Obama made the same deal to Bill Richardson that he previously offered to Biden, only this time the deal was accepted.The Times article describes not only the rumors, but gives an eye-witness account and confession of an Obama official telling Richardson supporters that a pact had indeed been made between the two candidates. "That’s what the leadership has said," admitted Deb Copeland, an Obama volunteer as reported by the New York Times. "What we’re concerned about is we heard of a few people going to Hillary. And we want to keep you together," she told the Richardson supporters at the 64th precinct. Volunteers for the Biden campaign told the Rev. Rob Times that Obama organizers used the same speech about a "pact" to lure supporters in at least two precincts where Biden was only a few supporters shy of viability.Representatives from both the Obama and Richardson campaigns deny that such a deal was ever struck, yet first hand testimonies clearly paint a far different picture. The Effect in the end, the effect of backdoor wheeling and dealing between campaigns is that Richardson’s fourth place finish could be artificial, and Obama’s victory margin is larger than it would have been in a democratic system. Our democracy is based, in part, on the concept of "one man, one vote," and a vote by a secret ballot, free from the judging eyes of neighbors and the media, free from bribery, and free from the influence of political activists. Had the Iowa contest been based on a ballot, and had caucus voters cast a single vote for the candidate of their choice as is the most fair method of picking a president, then Obama may have come in second and Richardson in fifth. If Obama’s victory margin had been smaller, or if he placed second, then the dynamic of the race would have changed drastically. Edwards, Clinton, and even Biden may have all come out of Iowa in stronger positions than any of them have.In part, the system is to blame, but those who took advantage of it and exploited it for their own purposes, namely Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, are not without culpability and their misdeeds should be remembered in the minds of voters.
We are absolutely sick of obama saying hes not running on race, but thats all he offering and all we are talking about!!!!, NO NEWS MEDIA, especially CNN will talk about his in-experience, flip flopping on serious issues, lack of voting in the senate, sides with George Bush on continuing and the war and voting against bringing the troops home, he is a self proclaimed Black Racist. What’s wrong with this picture America? It’s disgusting that media is afraid to speak out on obama for fear they would be attacking a black man, who cares, this is America, but it’s ok to lie and attack a white woman who has proven what she can do for our country. Woman of NH wake up! Obama keeps touting Change, what change? Race? That’s not change that’s going backwards 50yrs. I HAVE NOT HEARD OR READ THE CHANGE OBAMA TALKS ABOUT? THE CHANGE IS PUTTING AN INEXPERIENCED BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE, EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT THE BEST CANDIDATE? If obama is the dem nom, you will see another Republican President in 2008!
Well it looks like our friendly neighborhood anti-Obama spammer is back. You STILL haven’t learned your lesson about copy-pasting, it would seem. Do you really think people are so stupid that they wouldn’t realize you were copying from another site. Quite a site too, with such fascinating headlines as "The psy-op is working" and "AT&T Tortures and Kills Animals".
So the charge is a sort of voter-fraud. What is the charge for the near 10 point lead of Obama in NH? More fraud?
As an Obama supporter, I don’t actually mind this conspiracy-theory activity so much, though I find the clutter on my favorite blog somewhat bothersome. Mindlessly attacking Obama didn’t work in Iowa, and Clinton seems to have wisely decided to avoid it this time around, but you keep at it, it helps Obama, if it does anything.
Lynx: lol, thanks for the response. I agree with you and was about to delete the comments but then saw that you had already reacted. Next time: don’t react. I’ll simply delete it.
In Germany and England and France and Nigeria and Darfur and Austrailia and New Zealand and Bali the people are calling forth his name. Praising the ground upon which this great unknown, untried, untested man walks and calling his name in reverence as the Great ????? who seeks to unite a divided world?
It has become Irreverent to criticize this man. It has become wrong to attempt to question is integrity, his background, his actions, his ability. Any questioning of his qualifications to lead the world is met with disdain.
A world in which we have been united and bound together closer then anytime in history by the internt. A world in which my writing this post can every easily discover who I am and where I live. A world in which privacy is being erroded by the big brother known as the internet. A world in which Christians are seen as the evil, the mass exodus of people from faith and the reforming of Israel into a nation as pretold in the bible predicts the one great event that is to come.
For as the bible predicts that in the end their will be a mass falling away from me. God. That the believers will deny my name, will turn from my word and will choose a path that leads them from my presence. No time in history is that more pronounced then today.
A world in which we talk daily about Mass Destruction. The splintering of the former USSR into many nations. A Russian customs department that informs us that last year alone 85 incidents of smugglers of Radioactive material was discovered. A world in which Pakistan has Nukes and is about to fall into the hands of Radical Religious Zealots. A world in which Iran is striving to acquire Nuclear weapons and which is run by Radical Religious Zealots.
A world in which it has been foretold that will end in fire and brimstone. The valley of Armageddon in the middle east burning with the fire of a 1000 suns.
The world is determining our election. Not Americans.
The world seeks a leader to lead the sheep to slaughter. Blindly following. Blindly obeying while not even realizing the blind barren path they have chose to walk.
Is the end time predictions of the world coming true? I dont know. I have never been an end times advocate but good lord what I see happening around the world and here at home along with the power of the internet scares the Bejesus out of me. Obama scares me even more.
Now I know how Anti Bush proponents felt when Bush was elected for a second term. I remember them saying they were scared witless. Thats sorta how I am right now. Terrified at the election of a man who 3 years ago was trying to decide who gets the next laundrymatt license in Illinois. Now he is being trumpeted as the next coming of Christ.
Im stocking up my bomb shelter.
I’m fairly certain that if you asked your average Clinton supporter why they supported her they’d say something like "because she has the most experience" or "because she’ll be able to stand up to the Republicans"
Actually the reason many of us support Hillary is that we believe she will govern much as her husband did. Hands off, moderate, seeking common ground and trying to govern all Americans instead of just those he liked.
Even the Republicans accused Bill Clinton of a do nothing presidency. Good. That is the way it should be. Why do we pass laws and rules and legislation? Because they are needed. Not because we can.
The less rules and laws that are passed the better off this country is. That is our hope with Hillary. That she will not take upon herself to be an advocate for the far left or the left but that she will advocate for all Americans.
Hillary has somewhat of a track record. I’m not sure Obama even has fingerprints.
Color me surprised. Obama is now being painted as the only popular candidate who triangulates and is vague on policy proposals. This is true of all mainstream candidates. Mitt Romney is probably the worst example, hemight as well be a poll reading robot.
As for Obama’s vagueness, even according to this site’s own Jason Steck that isn’t true. Obama’s policy ideas are but a Google search away, or available on his website.
We are free to disagree, and drop the "even according to this" etc. Both Pieter Dorsman and Jason Steck think very highly of Obama (even endorsed him for the Democratic nomination).
And no, he’s not the only one doing that. HE is the most hypocritical one about it though, at the democratic side at least (on the other side it’s Huckabee imo).
This has nothing to do with him being a Democrat either, frankly, if it’s between Huckabee and Clinton for instance, I’m rooting for Clinton.
It’s about a man with virtually no experience possibly becoming the leader of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen (as Ed Morrissey wrote today, only a couple of years back people would have laughed at him for only suggesting that he wanted to become president after a few years in the senate) and about a man who talks about change but just about no one knows what change he exactly means nor how he’s going to change ‘it’ (whatever it may mean).
That’s a bit snarky, but I tend to agree. And yes, I also think she will govern like her husband did and I also think that this is a good thing.
Michael,
How exactly do you think Clinton is experienced? By being a wife of a previous President? Which is at best comparible to a Cabinet level position – the public made it quite well known that they were not interested in her being co-President. Out of the entire Democrat field – Clinton & Obama have the least experience. At the very least, Obama’s experience was via being elected.
But Interested, the ones who now say that Clinton doesn’t have any real experience were the same ones who were complaining that she was Bill Clinton’s second Vice President back in the 1990s. I’ve read a lot of accounts about what she did back then and it’s perfectly clear that she was quite deeply involved in policy making and one of Bill’s most trusted and important advisers. I can’t see how anyone can deny that.
If we then look at experience on a national level (frankly, that entire ‘experience’ in a state senate Obama has is quite unimportant) she still has more experience than Obama. Hes only serving in the senate for a year or 2-3. Clinton’s serving 7-8.
During her husband’s presidency she went to Europe, she went to Asia, she talked to the Chinese, she fought for women’s rights… You may not all know that, but we in Europe do most certainly know and appreciate it.
Obama didn’t do any of those things: when Clinton was meeting with Chirac, Obama met with some homeless guy in Chicago. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s not exactly experience on a grand level either.
You have to vote for whomever you want to vote for, but that’s my view on it
Why is his experience in the state senate unimportant? As for Clinton’s experience in the U.S. Senate, I don’t recall her being the leader on any major issues. She certainly hasn’t been an agent of change there. To be fair, both of them have been tip-toeing around taking controversial stances in the run-up to their campaigns. Anyways, my point is that the difference between Clinton and Obama’s experience is negligible.
If you really want to support candidates with a broad range of experience, I suggest you look toward McCain and Richardson.
Here’s a great quote from Obama on the subject:
”Being experienced is not enough. The question is, what lessons do you learn from your experience? ‘Nobody had a better track record in experience than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, but they had bad judgment…"
It’s an unelected – and unaccountable position. Which is why I compared it to a Cabinate level position. State Senate – while just limited to the State itself is one that the voters hold the candidate accountable via their vote.
You are right on the US Senate though.
Doesn’t it bother you that she seemingly can’t stand up to pressure? Every time it gets a little rough for her ole Bill has to step in. What’s going to happen if a foreign country pressures her?
Actually the problem I have with the "she’ll govern like her husband did" is different than what many critics are saying. I don’t think Bill Clinton was bad overall but he certainly wasn’t conservative enough for me- and when I think about what influence Hillary had, she was generally the pull to the left while Bill was more of a centrist. On top of that, Bill became much more centrist only after he had a strong Republican Congress pulling him in that direction- he was smart enough to realize that he had to coapt more conservative issues in order to get anything done.
With the current animosity toward the GOP in general, I see little chance that the GOP will retake either house of Congress which means we have to consider what Hillary will govern like with a same party congress, not an opposition one. So given that she always seemed philosophically further left than Bill anyway, and he was too liberal IMO when he had the longer leash of a friendly Congress, I do have concerns about her. I’m not predicting Armageddon or anything, but I do think it’s wrong to assume she’ll be a harmless centrist.
That’s probably because you don’t understand the difference between politics on a state and on a federal level.
Pf! Really? You’re sure about that? She hasn’t been a leader in the Senate? Hm.
No it’s not, that’s what Obama supporters like to argue but it’s really not.
I repeat: 10 years ago people would have laughed their butts off if someone like Obama said he wanted to become president.
McCain lost my respect last weekend and Richardson proved to have lost his sanity with his remarks about Musharraf recently.
Romney has experience: both in business life and as a Governor. Experience someone like Obama lacks. He hasn’t accomplished anything in all his life, yet you seem to want him to become president. Well, you’ve got the right to do so, but I don’t think it’s wise to let someone like that become the most powerful person on earth.
He would be a tremendous candidate in 2012 or 2016, but in 2008?
Yeah, I know the talking points. I’m not quite receptive to them though. He turns the argument around and only people who don’t quite understand the rules of logic fall for it.
Having experience doesn’t per definition mean that one will be a great president indeed, but that’s doesn’t automatically mean that one doesn’t need it. See? Can you understand that argument?
On a related and funny note, Tully had a great post up at Stubborn Facts- a screenshot from WaPo listing Bill Clinton as one of the participants in the NH Democratic debates. Makes you wonder whether anyone actually likes Hillary at all or is her entire base simply the people who want Bill to have a third term?
In the end experience plays a huge role. Because a president can surround themselves with the greatest and wisest minds and advisors. But inevitably half will say do this and half will say do that.
The decision is the Presidents. The buck stops there. Who to follow. With no experience it makes that decision all the more tougher to follow.
This can be said of Jimmy Carter and George Bush. They both surrounded themselves with pretty smart guys and gals. Then proceeded to make one bad decision after another because they had no experience to deal with world altering decisions.
Obama camp constantly downplay his experience in favor of widom. Bull****! There is not such thing as wisdom without experience. Period. It is experience that makes us wise.
I don’t completely agree with that. Some people have the wisdom to pull advice from a broad variety of sources with varied opinions, and then to ask the right questions in order to decide whose advice is best (to be able to play devil’s advocate in the face of any advice, so that he/she can discover whether or not the advice holds up to tough scrutiny, and to give equal weight to varied opinions instead of getting locked into one course and then justifying it as you go along.)
Experience tends to sharpen that wisdom, but some people do innately possess more of it.
I do, and so does Obama. I think Obama’s state level experience is valuable. I think too often the Federal government tramples on states’ rights.
Yeah, she hasn’t. I don’t recall any major issues that she has lead the way on. Your lack of specificity is telling.
Lincoln had a similar level of experience. What had George W. Bush done besides win a couple elections? His foreign policy experience was something on the order of nada.
Experience that he seems to regret, since he’s running as fast as he can away from his record.
He was elected to the Illinois Senate, the U.S. Senate. He’s gone to Columbia and Harvard. He was a lecturer on constitutional law in at the U. of Chicago. That’s a hell of a lot more than most people will accomplish in their lives, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I understand the argument, and it makes sense in a vacuum. If you had to choose between Candidate A w/ 10 experience points vs. Candidate B w/ 12 experience points, how could you not pick Candidate B? But there are other factors at play here. Policy positions, corruptibility, willingness to use questionable political tactics, etc.
Well, that places you above at least one commenter on this thread, lol.