Not to nit-pick, but this does not “give pause” to this Obama supporter. Is it cause for concern? Absolutely. It shows why it is so important for him to deal with the Wright controversy and move the campaign back to the merits. But this does not give me pause in the sense of weakening my support. My support is based on the substance of his positions and his leadership. My belief in his electoral prospects is also based on his substance, the appeal of his politics to independents and his ability to convey his message to independents. It was not based solely on the fact of high poll numbers. If that were the criteria, no one would have ever gotten on board his campaign.

Between McCain having a whole month to smile and wave, and Clinton practically tearing off Obama's skin with her pointy teeth, this result is largely expected.

MORE EXCELLENT NEWS FROM CLINTON TALKING POINTS MEMO!

I strongly believe that McCain's rise in the polls over BOTH Hillary and Obama can be directly attributed to the red phone ad and Hillary attacking Obama's qualifications as CinC which are better than her own, while touting McCain.

This alone should disqualify Hillary from being the nominee.

One wonders whether McCain's chronic inability to distinguish Sunni from Shiite, and his repeated insistences that Iran is training al-Qaeda, has given Hillary any reason to reconsider whether he's crossed that C-in-C threshold.

Probably not. I haven't heard her mention it.

Not a good sign my fellow Obama supporters. Let's hope this is a temporary Wright bump... but we're bordering on "black candidate" territory here, at least in the minds of older, white male indepedents -- especially those in the east coast cities, and this is BAD.

We've got to work double-time to demand a more adult look at the issues. I tried last night with my dad to no avail. There are major resentments in the older generation toward the black power movement that are now coupling with Wright and by association, to Obama, which is VERY unfortunate. He's got to keep fighting this, and keep doing in a novel, impressive way.

OBAMA/HAGEL 08!

These polls are catching Obama at the nadir of his campaign and I imagine that once the whole Wright things become a few news cycles removed, he will bounce back. I'm afraid that for Hillary, it's too little, too late. If this all took place in late January or early February, we might be looking a differenct scenario. I imagine that once Obama wraps up the nomination and the party unites behind him, his poll numbers will rise significantly going head to head with McCain.

This is excellent news! For Jesus!

Your CBS poll was taken thru the worst part of the Wright debate -- and includes the bad weekend and just THE day of Obama's speech on Race.

A bit unfair bit of so-called news, don't you think?

And my point has always been on electability. If you want to continue to live in blissful ignorance while you replay Obama speeches and gaze at only positive stories about him, then you are all in for a rude awakening.

What is more important to you? To see him win the nomination or to see a dem back in the White House? Because I'm starting to think it is the former. It is looking like you Obama supporters would rather win the nomination, at any cost: Even if it means the dems will lose in the general just so you can crown your guy winner of the nomination. Him winning the nomination won't mean sh*t if he doesn't win the general election. Why are we wasting all this money? Just for a nomination??

This thinking is so crazy its beyond words.

Rae

But not, presumably, for Clinton?

Thus his strategy of taking it to McCain now. There's a lot of time between now and November. I think Dems ought to be thinking less about polls now and more about who will make the best argument against McCain and the status quo in the General.

I think that Obama is clearly better at getting any message across than any other candidate we've seen in awhile. With a number of months to focus attacks on McCain, he'd pull ahead easily.

Remember when you see these polls that McCain is kind of scooting by untouched right now. It won't be that way soon. HRC needs to get out of the way.

Hey, Rae, could you make a case for Hillary's electability? In it, please acknowledge that she has a hard 47% disapproval rating before this campaign started, and--fairly or not--her campaign has alienated some of the core constituencies of the Democrats whom she would rely on to overcome this problem.

Let's not even consider this poll since it was BEFORE the big speech. Wasted emotion and energy.

I support Clinton, but I think this poll says nothing definitive yet. A week or two from now should be much reliable. If it's the same then, then I think we should all worry.

Greg, obviously this is worth reporting, but who ever said indies going to Obama should be 'taken for granted'?? And, it's odd that the fact that--in Obama's worst week yet--he's still doing better against McCain than Clinton and is beating her is buried in the graph. Regardless, I think the ultimate takeaway from all of the last few days' polls is that 1) Obama is not falling apart/is still the likely nominee and 2) the Clinton/McCain/Fox News triumvirate is really hurting BOTH Democrats' general election numbers.

I think we see fluctuations in Obama's support when things happen (red phone ad, Ohxas, Wright) because he is the riskier candidate. Clinton, like her or hate her is pretty much a known quantity. Obama is riskier so when things happen, it pushes up the risk quotient higher than it might with someone else. I think this is also a big reason he isn't as popular among lower income/older/less educated. They tend to be a lot more risk averse.
Ultimately he will be fine, especially once he gets out of the primary but a bit of a wild ride in the meantime.

The central question underlying an Obama nomination is, will Obama be the 21st Centry Al Smith?

I'm still trying to make up my mind on this question. I hope that the majority of American are ready to move beyond the race issue. Had I been alive to wonder about the Al Smith candidacy, would I have wondered whether American were then ready to move beyond the Catholicism issue?

The truth is that I just don't know whether the majority white Americans (particularly those in the southern states) can be color blind voters. I don't even know how to make a decent inquiry on the race issue.

Hey I don’t take national polls to seriously. November is a long way from now. BTW McCain has not been vetted yet. McCain is getting a free ride from the media. Call me when the DNC stops the circular firing squad between Obama and Clinton, proclaim a nominee and eventually go after McCain. McCain has no plans. He is more of the same. The question Dems have to ask the American people is how you are doing today. We all know the answer. Than I would say if you’re happy with the way the country is vote for McCain. If you are not, vote Democratic. Anyway he is worse than Bush. McCain is more like Hoover. Once dems start pointing this out how disconnected grandpa is from reality i.e. his stance on healthcare and confusing Iraq and Iran Grandpa’s negatives will go up and his numbers will drop. Remember polls mean nothing now. Obama or Clinton will crush grandpa McCain in November.. The economy, healthcare and Iraq are issues Grandpa has no idea about.

Hey I don’t take national polls to seriously. November is a long way from now. BTW McCain has not been vetted yet. McCain is getting a free ride from the media. Call me when the DNC stops the circular firing squad between Obama and Clinton, proclaim a nominee and eventually go after McCain. McCain has no plans. He is more of the same. The question Dems have to ask the American people is how you are doing today. We all know the answer. Than I would say if you’re happy with the way the country is vote for McCain. If you are not, vote Democratic. Anyway he is worse than Bush. McCain is more like Hoover. Once dems start pointing this out how disconnected grandpa is from reality i.e. his

When a democrat throws kitchen and sink at her fellow democrat all other democrats hide in their rat holes when a their presidential nominee is ripped apart by the Fox led MSM- these are the results.

I don't know if Obama will recover, but interestingly, It's been the safest month for Hillary and she still cannot gain any of the middle ground.

Overall, very bad news. Better take down McCain now.

Where is anyone saying Obama can take Independents "for granted" Greg? Or is that just another of your incompetent attempts at reporting? AFAIK people have always said this is going to be a very difficult election despite the great unpopularity of Bush and the disarray in the Republican party, because the Dems are running two very unorthodox candidates.

Regardless, as the poll you cite shows, Obama does have a lead with Indies over Clinton. So, yes, that would validate the argument he's more electable if Indies are the deciding factor. There are other polls which show him doing much better with Indies, and you're citing a below average example. We also have to consider negatives, the negative turnout offsetting positive turnout, and there Hillary is also disadvantaged.

Greg, if you don't like Obama on some gut level, fine. But could you in writing at least attempt to base it on something factual and reasonable for a change? At least get the facts right. Quit making such an ass of yourself and showing why you're the poll monkey as opposed to a blogger in your own right with your own site.

Why Josh hired these tools, aside from the obvious reason of expanding quantity so as to generate more clicks and ad revenue, it otherwise a mystery. He certainly didn't elevate quality by doing so.

How many posts are you going to make of polls that are supposedly so interesting but then you leave us with the "of course this doesn't include any polling after the Phila. speech"?

Hey, congratulations to the Clinton camp on this great news!
Between your endorsements of John "A muslim is a muslim" McCain as having passed the commander-in-chief threshold, your endless pandering to race politics (an odd strategy for a Democratic candidate, but hey, Mark Penn knows best, and the baggage your candidate drags with her from two terms as first lady in a troubled administration we have managed to - yet again - find a way to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
How wonderful of you all to stay in the race, even though the only way Hillary can win now is by fiat, coup, or scorching the earth where Barack Obama used to stand in all his eloquence, intelligence, and energy.
In what should have been a shoe-in for Democrats, including the coattails that an Obama presidency would bring with it, we have managed once again as a party to let personal pride and out-dated prejudice set up a McCain landslide.
Think the last 8 years were bad - just wait for round three.

Thanks again!

d.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of Greg's bias or lack thereof:

"there are some good general election numbers for Obama. He beats McCain by a larger margin than Hillary does, and he has the highest favorability rating of all three."

Why isn't this the headline? Strikes me as selective reading these poll results. But, then again, it does contradict the CW that Wright is destroying Obama's candidacy.

Obama's problem is his close long-term relationship with Wright. That can't be blamed on either Hillary or McCain. There's no speech he can make that will make twenty years go away or mimimize Wright's rhetoric. Still Josh, Kos and the rest of the liberal blogosphere are ready to tie the Democratic Party to the mast of this sinking nominee for better or worse.

Keep your fingers crossed that McCain self-destructs. It could happen. Appears to me that all the beatings he took in Hanoi may be catching up to him.

I believe Hillary is the better bet but Obama is an intriguing candidate who I'll have no problem voting for in November. An Afro-centric President wouldn't bother me one bit.

TennesseeGirl: Obama, yes, would beat McCain. Hillary definitely would not. I've helped on projects that do internal polling, and Hillary's numbers are absolutely dismal against McCain.

The most important number are the negatives, and for Hillary, they've been stuck around 50% and recently, in fact, have gone well above it.

It's essentially impossible to overcome such unfavorables-- they've done studies of this thing, and the unfavorables of a candidate, especially when so persistent, have the highest predictability of any factor.

What bothers me is that much of the growth in HRC's negatives has been coming about among Democrats.

Well over half of Obama supporters would be quite bitter if Hillary were to be handed the nomination despite Obama's big lead in pledged delegates, and a very large fraction would be utterly furious about it. They're angry with the prior race-baiting and dumb stunts like shutting down the Nevada caucuses early to push out Obama backers, or that apparent vote-rigging with Obama getting zero votes in Harlem (or this apparent report about Hillary and Rendell staffers getting busted trying to rig voting machines in Pennsylvania). This isn't just anti-Obama, it's anti-democracy, and it's anathema to a functioning party. This has been borne out by my own experience-- most Democrats I know aren't Netroots types, but they would not support Hillary at all, not after all the bad blood that's been fostered.

African-American voters would just stay home-- many would even vote McCain. Quite a few Black leaders are even urging this if Hillary were to get the nomination since, at this point, it could only occur through BS maneuvering. Gen-Y voters just don't have the kinds of party affiliations of prior generations-- they'll vote for a candidate that they like, but they'll sit out an election involving a candidate that they're not so excited about. Picking Hillary instead of Obama would kill our Party.

This isn't what bothers me most, actually. Obama will still be getting the nomination, he's too far ahead and, while Pennsylvania is likely a Hillary state due to the demographics, Obama will still pick up many votes and delegates, and he'll win many of the upcoming states.

But the longer Hillary drags this futile process out, the more damaging it will be for the Democrats, and the more resources that will be wasted.

Furthermore, Hillary has some nasty scandals of her own on the way, the most damaging being the Peter F. Paul trial against her, which will be starting up in October. That really bothers me b/c it's a ticking time-bomb for the Democratic Party in general-- a media smorgasbord of ugly topics and nasty disclosures that would bring the worst parts of the Clinton past to public view, and damage the Party in general.

When you couple this with the still-lingering damage from other Hillary fundraising scandals like Norman Hsu, not to mention the recent release of Hillary's First Lady papers-- there's a lot of damage for the Party there. Those papers BTW, show that Hillary very much was a supporter of NAFTA, and they also bring attention to the state of affairs leading to the health care debacle in 1994. These things will permanently damage Hillary, but especially if she continues to stay in the race like this and draw media attention, these things will exact severe damage on the party in general, as well.

"That's what we're seeing now--Fox has the Reverend Wright on virtual full broadcast."

I don't usually see Fox News, so I surfed on over to their website. Obama and Wright are indeed there in close juxtaposition, but with this headline:

"Poll: Obama Doesn't Share Pastor's Views"

The story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339949,00.html

is not exactly a puff piece, but I was surprised nonetheless. This is the kind of thing I expect to see here.

Nice strawmen attacks, lyzurgyk. Obama as an Afrocentric candidate?

Funny, seems that Obama has been minimizing race as an issue throughout this campaign, and when he finally did confront race, he did so in an eloquent fashion that categorically rejected the Afrocentrism of his minister.

None of us believes everything that people around us say, especially an independent thinker such as Obama. It's truly idiotic to attribute the thoughts of associates to people themselves-- if this were the case, all of us would be tarred with the brush of questionable statements. Including you, lyzurgyk, who've said a stupid thing here in your own words.

If there'd been any doubt about Obama's views, he dispelled them with the speech. While also saying important things about bridging our painful divide today throughout the nation.

Obama, after all, is half-White and half-Black himself-- hardly an Afrocentric person. He's been able to identify with both sides and to bridge them, and now that the Wright issue is deservedly dying down, he's focusing on real issues of importance.

Two things are frequently overlooked in these "electability" arguments:

1) Conservatives aren't motivated to vote *for* McCain. Turnout on the Republican side should be lower compared to 2000 and 2004. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, conservatives now have a motivation to vote *against* a woman they so despise. I know first-hand, as a PA resident whose only motivation for voting in 2006 was to get Rick Santorum out of office.

2) Democratic turnout this primary season has been HUGE. Record breaking numbers. I understand that the Independent vote is important (was registered Independent until last month...became a Dem so I could vote for Obama in the PA primary). Republican turnout has been mediocre at best. While you can't win the general without *some* support outside your party, there's more wiggle room when your party's turnout is twice that of its opponent. If Obama is the nominee, he'll *want* Independents, but McCain will *need* Independents. Big difference.

Remember, though, TPM has a strict policy of not endorsing candidates. But since they churn out post after post regarding what a terrible President McCain would be, I guess we can assume that this non-endorsement policy only applies to Democrats. And why would that be? Maybe because they can't come out and endorse a Democratic candidate without pissing off half of their readership. So this principled stand of faux objectivity is really nothing more than ass-covering.

So certain writers at TPM are left to spin for one candidate or the other while trying to maintain the appearance of neutrality. In my opinion, they generally spin for Clinton (just my opinion) -- and this is probably another reason they maintain this Principled Stand of not endorsing (Democratic) candidates: demographically speaking, I'd guess most TPM readers are in Obama's corner.

I'd recommend dropping this facade of neutrality since most of the reporting here is chock-full of opinion anyway. This selective pretense at "objectivity" is far worse than just stating what your views are.

I don't know, though, maybe the goal around here to emulate the worst aspects of the MSM...

Great, another poll.

All these polls measure is the noise right now. In the case of this poll – before Obama’s 3 Big Speeches – Race/Religion, Iraq/National Security/Foreign Policy and Iraq/Economy.

So I’ll wait for the next poll with the understanding that all it measures is the noise at the time of polling. Note that Obama is being bloodied not only by – (1) - Fair and Balanced MSM (read that as MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, FUX – as explained with beautiful precision by the Daily Show/Stephen Colbert last night), but - (2) - also by Sen. Clinton’s kitchen sink. Didn’t she recently call him "un-American?" Sen. Clinton is running a republican campaign against her democratic opponent. And what is her slur-du-Jour regarding the RE-VOTE for MI and FL? I can't keep up with all the slurs flying out of her campaign.

As for McSame, those numbers tell me that he’s remained unbloodied. Not only has he remained unbloodied by the free ride the MSM has given him, but also Sen. Clinton continues to elevate McSame’s credentials, despite his Suni/Shia confusions. So these poll numbers tell me exactly what’s going on NOW and how it’s sounding in the reverberating minds of John/Jane Q. Public, American.

This shows that: 1.) the numbers between Obama and McCain are soft, and they will both have to fight for Independents; 2.) Clinton's lack of appeal among Independents is a constant.

Polls schmolls. Wasn't it just before New Hampshire that the polls were so dead wrong? And as several others here have pointed out, A)It's thanks to the MSM constantly beating the Wright/racism issue over our heads that polls are fluctuating. Did you notice Anderson Cooper interviewing Obama the other night? He wouldn't let it fade, milking the "controversy" for all the ratings he could get; B) It's still months until the general election. Best to air out the dirty laundry now so it's old news (and so the Obama campaign can figure out an intelligent strategy to combat it) by then. It's obvious this is the Republican swift boat issue of '08, so may as well start crafting the responses. Btw, Greg's kinda cute. A bit of a cut-and-paster, but cute.

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - Reverend Jeremiah Wright is in the news lately for being Barack Obama's former pastor and for his controversial remarks.

And 4 years ago, Wright was also the keynote speaker at the University of Utah's Martin Luther King Jr. celebration.

As a matter of fact, Wright got a standing ovation at the university's student union.

In his speech, Wright told the crowd that just because people are different doesn't make one group better or worse than another.

And in a KUED - Channel Seven interview afterward, Wright talked about anti-Iraq War comments made during his sermons.

Interviewer: "Do you perceive you will be deemed anti-American or anti-military because of those comments?

Rev. Wright: "Having spent six years in the military, the only person who can think that will be someone who, as my advisor at the University of Chicago said, is abysmally ignorant."

And in his speech, Wright also likened his speaking out against the Iraq war to Martin Luther King opposing the war in Vietnam.

HE IS NOT A MONSTER!...HILLARY IS THE MONSTER
WE NEED TO SLAY THE RIGHT DRAGON.

What???

The most recent Survey USA head to head matchup has Obama *tied* with McCain 47-47 in....Massachusetts. How is that even possible? Massachusetts is really, really blue.

Hillary up by 13 in Mass.

I think that Obama gave a brave history making speech.

Clinton has made some brave speeches as well. One that I remember in particular she gave in 1995 in China at the Fourth World Conference on Women.

The NY Times noted that: "Speaking more forcefully on human rights than any American dignitary has on Chinese soil, Hillary Rodham Clinton catalogued a devastating litany of abuse that has afflicted women around the world today and criticized China for seeking to limit free and open discussion of women's issues here."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDF133DF935A3575AC0A963958260

I agree with this, as the best analysis of the above story. In fact, it is the only valid analysis. Of the many weapons the Power Elite hold, one of its most powerful is The Manufacture Of Consent. They will continue to smear and marginalize anyone who opposes them. Even if Obama or Clinton is able to survive the propaganda battle and assume the Presidency, they will be too tarnished to oppose the Power Elite in any meaningful way. Regardless of the winner, we will remain a nation of the Military by the Rockefellers. This cannot be changed without revolutionary violence; therefore the only rational response to the insipid daily trickle of polls, tabloids, and anecdotes is to flee, and seek asylum in a new land.