comparing with older polls might mean something but this new poll seems within the likely margin of error, so who knows...

But these are rolling polls that go back several days. There's no question that Wright hurt him in the short-term, but we can't yet say that the damage is permanent just beausse his numbers haven't fully rebounded mere days later!

Considering it is ONLY 3 days since the speech, I'm happy with the 5 point swing back (was 7 behind HRC but now is only 2 behind). Just wait until next Tuesday, a full week after the speech is absorbed.

His number will be on their way to an almost full recovery. Some damage won't be undone, but it will be minimal when all is said and done.

.
.

By Rae:

Everyone who has not drank the Obama Koolaid is now really questioning the judgment of a man - a politician - with all the negative connotations that the label “politician” elicits, a politician who would negligently, without thought, enroll his children in a hate preaching church, or with thought, calculatingly do so for political expediency, without care of the price it would cost him and his children; that price being the brutal assault on the new and fresh minds and souls in those young ones who would have otherwise been allowed to grow and flourish in a new and better world - a world free of much of the old prejudices and hatreds of an older generation.

But no, Obama took away that innocence from his children either because of a lack of awareness and negligence in parenting and role modeling, or done in a calculated choice and disregard of them for the sake of political ambition. Either way, you arrive at the same result, that of bad judgment.
Everyone should question Obama on that, supporters and non-supporters alike.

We expect our leaders to exercise better judgment than that. Heck, the average American typically would know better than that, even the typical white people Obama referred to in his latest speech explaining his ill advised comparison between his own grandmother and his pastor.

But if we expect even more from our leaders then can we not, should we not, now question those who knowing of this defect in judgment, still come out in support of him and even endorse him as Bill Richardson did today? And what does that say of Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a republican who endorsed Obama when he did not know better, who now continues to appear on Obama’s behalf, knowing of this poor judgment?

These politicians are now saying to the American people, we don’t care about that judgment. Our judgment is the same and our judgment says we want this man, this politician to be our leader now, our children’s role model.

When these politicians come up for re-election, we the typical white people as well as people of color who think it unwise to teach our children hate, should not forget those who came out in support of this politician and his judgment.

Rae

"Still, Obama has yet to recover fully from the apparent damage done by the Wright controversy. It was only one week ago that Obama led the race by a significant six-point margin over Clinton, 50% to 44%."

Well...duh. The Wright controversy had a whole weekend of relentless news cycles to sink in, over the course of 4-5 days, whereas Obama's speech hasn't had that much time yet. Plus, this is a rolling average, which means it includes two days where we hadn't reached "message saturation" on the Obama speech that was, basically, the campaign push-back, whereas the Wright thing got saturation almost immediately.

He'll be back where he was soon enough. We already seeing other polls (CBS, IIRC) showing him back up over Clinton among Dems

I asked two very simple Yes/No questions of Obama supporters and other everyone on another thread and got only one answer. I'll repost here as I think the non-answers as well as any actual answers, even if simply garbage that some posters prefer to share can and is very telling.

1. Have you heard in your own church your preacher speak in racist terms and with anti-American hate, such as Rev. Wright has done and as Obama now acknowledges he's heard?

2. And if you have, are you still a member of that church?

I bet HRC drops out within a week. With all major networks and PBS covering the "insurmountable lead" last night and with the recent fund raising news (February fund raising wasn't actually as good as she said. in fact it was a lot worse - http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/) she is going to be losing support.

HRC has other elections to worry about and doesn't want to stay in so long that she is blamed for any democrat failings. She needs to save face. She will drop out next week.

"the Obama Koolaid"

Did you make that up? Because I haven't heard any Obama critics ever use the highly creative and original phrase before. You're pretty bright to just make this stuff up.

Oh, you should refer to his supporters as a "cult". That would be another highly original new critique that no one like you has ever ever ever used before.

Actually Ruth, it is important as it goes to the heart of Obama's character. It is telling that he's heard the comments, admits to it, and still takes his daughters to the same church to be indoctrinated in the racism and hate that he professes to reject. Oh, but yes, let's not forget his little slip, if we want to be generous, in trashing his own grandmother as a 'typical white person'. It is clear he sees all white people as racist. This is character and Obama's comes of incredibly short.

Here's another column regarding the fact that Hillary has already lost:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/03/20/clinton-facing-obstructed-path-to-the-nomination.aspx

"Do not judge me by the sins of my parents and ancesters just as I would not judge you by yours."

You're constantly exhorting us all to judge Obama by the actions and words of another man. Do you see no contradiction there?

If I have to weigh some offensive remarks made during the passion of a sermon with systematically protecting child rapists and giving them access to more victims, I think the latter is a much much much bigger reason to leave a church. And that happened "in the past" if you consider five years ago to be the past.

This headline is the height of absurdity. He's gone from trailing her outside of the margin of error back to a statistical tie in two days. That's excellent for Obama.

Good that you said you are going to a Catholic church, Mathew, because I am too, then I can tell you something from Catholic to Catholic. Our Church was founded by a guy associated with goverment crooks and prostitutes. Our Church was propagated to the West by a fanatic that then stole a lot from Greek philosophers (St. Paul), and then by and African that was quite dissolute (St. Augustine). Among the stains of our Church are the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo trial and in recent times complicity with several dictators and an infection with pedophile priests.
Should we renounce our Church?
My answer is NO. Why? Because we found values in our Church that are not apparent to the casual observer. Yes, we argue and try to change things that we don't like in there, but we don't leave.
More personal, in my youth I used to attend a CHurch whose priest was an excellent man, the closest to a Saint that I ever met. But when giving a sermon, especially when related to politics, he would say a lot of controversial things. This was in Argentina so the examples that I could say won't say much to you, but hard staff. Should I left. Well no, because I knew the man, and again there was much more in there than was apparent for the casual observer. In the case of Wright, if the only thing we know are the 30 s videos from Fox, we are less than casual observers. Furthermore, CNN today has a report showing that one of the most controversial statements about 9/11 was actually a quote from a white diplomat of the USA. Conveniently, FOX left out the beggining and the end of the quote.
Coming where I am coming from, and giving Obama's honest refusal to throw Rev. Wright under the bus, I suspect that the relationship is deep, and that Rev Wright is a much better person than the caricature that they want us to believe.

two days ago I dared you---Please---I implore you---I beg you---do not let this story die---please let the chips fall wherever---do not turn loose of this---for the sake of hillary---please, please, run another post tomorrow and friday in big headlines regarding the daily gallup tracking poll. Do not clutter it with any references to rasmussen----just the raw data from gallup. Did i mention in big headlines?

I dare you.

Posted at March 19, 2008 2:06 PM in response to Gallup:

kudos to your courageousness.

Matthew Weaver said:

"Obama has explained it away, yes, says he rejects it, but still continued to go there and even take his daughters."

Okay, finally we've gotten down to the nitty-gritty of the problem: Barack Obama allows his children to pray in the same building somebody used to say some crazy stuff. He refuses to protect himself and his children from the fumes of racial tension that were absorbed into the woodwork and ventilation, and that continue, like asbestos, to leach out into the air and be inhaled into the lungs of Black Chicagoans.

"Typical white people" are racist enough in 2008 that casting directors still recast Asian American roles with white actors on the grounds that white audiences won't pay money to see Asian Americans (particularly men) in starring roles. And the casting directors are right. Take a look at the revision of the MIT blackjack team in "21" for just the latest example.

So you're saying that your church is just the one individual Catholic church you go to, but you're not actually part of the Catholic hierarchy. Right? You can't be held accountable for the sins of the Catholic church in general, because YOUR priest didn't diddle any altar boys. The bishop, the archbishop, the pope, that whole thing, you reject that; you're the kind of Catholic who just belongs to the individual congregation but not to the broader organization. Right?

Have you discussed this attitude with your priest? Because I expect you'd need to say about 6,000 Hail Mary's for every day you don't repent of this attitude. The Catholic Church's attitude about this is that it's all one big church and you're all part of it. So nice try. You're a member of a church that covered up pedophilia for years. If you have some sort of ingenious excuse for why it's still ok for you to be a member, maybe you ought to give a little more credence to Obama's reasons for staying with his church.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the Gallup Daily tracking poll is fairly worthless as a measure of the national opinion and would fluctuate no matter what. It is funny to see people stumbling over themselves to explain these minor swings.

Blaming America for HIV is pretty far out there.
Posted by Matthew Weaver
-
Uh, I agree to a certain extent, but the black community does have a precedent for suspicion. Ever hear of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study? Matt, how would you feel if the government lied to you and gave you a venereal disease?

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/

At the start of the study, there was no proven treatment for syphilis. But even after penicillin became a standard cure for the disease in 1947, the medicine was withheld from the men. The Tuskegee scientists wanted to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. The experiment lasted four decades, until public health workers leaked the story to the media.

By then, dozens of the men had died, and many wives and children had been infected. In 1973, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a class-action lawsuit. A $9 million settlement was divided among the study's participants. Free health care was given to the men who were still living, and to infected wives, widows and children.

But it wasn't until 1997 that the government formally apologized for the unethical study. President Clinton delivered the apology, saying what the government had done was deeply, profoundly and morally wrong:

Saturday, March 22, 2008
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows ongoing volatility in the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Nationally, Hillary Clinton now holds a very slight advantage over Barack Obama, 46% to 44%. Before the story broke about his former Pastor, Obama led Clinton by eight percentage points (see recent daily results). While the national polls remain close, Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama a - % chance to win the Democratic nomination while expectations for a Clinton victory are at - %.

Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 49% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 43% (see recent daily results). New polling shows McCain leading both Democrats in Georgia and Arkansas. In Minnesota, the race is very close.

On Saturday, Obama’s favorable ratings slipped a little further—46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

Obama 51% unfavorable, highest of the campaign. Thank you Reverend Wright from a typical white person

Saturday, March 22, 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

Memo to Mr. Freezee, who has stated that "it's HRC for POTUS or no one," and who has plainly pinned his candidate's hopes on hate, negativity, and destructiveness: go eat yourself.

HRC pulling out the nomination is a longshot (even one of her advisers states only a 10% chance). But let's say she DOES somehow pull it out by doing all she can to destroy Obama's political viability. As disgusting as that would be, I'd still vote for her over McCain, because McCain will be no better than Bush, despite his inflated positives with independents. At the end of the day I want a better country...not my own sour grapes. If you truly believe that John McCain as president will serve the progressive agenda better than Barack Obama, that McCain will more effectively reverse the incredible damage wrought by the Bush years, then by all means, vote for him. But in that case you are an utter fool.