Poll: Obama Leads McCain By Four, With Majority Wanting Out Of Iraq
Another survey is showing Barack Obama ahead of John McCain nationwide, with the ABC/Washington Post poll giving the presumptive Democratic nominee a 49%-45% lead among registered voters, and 48%-42% lead among all adults.
Other questions in the poll don't have much good news for McCain. Only 34% of respondent feel the Iraq War was worth fighting, with 63% saying it was not. If US casualties are involves, 55% of respondents want to withdraw forces from Iraq rather than maintain civil order.
The only good question for McCain involves the recent Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo detainees, with only 34% saying prisoners there should be able to challenge their detentions in civilian courts, and 61% saying they should not. As such, expect the GOP to hammer this issue.
The poll on the gitmo ruling reveals that dems really need to get in front of this issue. How anyone can say that it's ok to hold people indefinitely without them at least knowing what the charges are against them is frankly appalling.
Yes, if they are terrorists and there is evidence against them they should be tried, convicted and imprisoned. That should have been done 4 years ago. The question should be why haven't these people been tried and convicted yet. If there is no evidence against them, they should be released. It really isn't rocket science.
Also, I hope the first thing that obama does as president is stop all this we are in a war bs. Terrorists are criminals, treat them as such. Don't turn them into war heros for pete's sake and don't keep ginning up all this war of civilizations garbage.
June 17, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"How anyone can say that it's ok to hold people indefinitely without them at least knowing what the charges are against them is frankly appalling."
Because they weren't "arrested." They were on a battlefield, fighting as "unlawful enemy combatants" as defined in the Geneva Conventions. They are recieving better treatment and more rights than are guaranteed by the same.
June 17, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? I'd like a lawyer to speak up about this because it's my understanding that the Geneva Conventions does not include the term "unlawful combatant" so I'm not sure how it could be defined in there.
June 17, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a provision addressing the treatment of unlawful enemy combatants and it actually kind of makes sense. The purpose, by and large, is for deliniating the treatment of civilian populations in occupied territories by an occupying power when the civilian population is uprising. The civilian population isn't an organized military so the geneva conventions wanted to include the treatment of such combatants by the signatories. Think of the colonial wars after WWII, like algeria and indonisia and other colonies that were trying to get rid of the european occupiers. That was the purpose of the clauses addressing unlawful enemy combatants.
Now how does a terrorist that we captured in a foreign country, like pakistan, fit into this background? He or she doesn't. A terrorist picked up in Iraq or Afghanistan proper, might, but not one picked up in pakistan or another country where we aren't an occupying power.
June 17, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the clarification.
June 17, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, sorry alot of the remaining detainees were picked up by "tips" from pakistanis for a bounty far from any battlefield. Also, KSM wasn't picked up on a battle field, nor were any of the other high profile terrorists being held. They were arrested by pakistani intelligence by and large.
On the geneva convention, I suggest that you read the section on unlawful enemy combatants. They are not being treated in compliance with the conventions and I don't believe that the prisoners being held qualify as unlawful enemy combatants in any event.
The terrorists are criminals. Treat them as such. Try them, convict them, and put them in prison. Clean and simple.
June 17, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the Dems need to do a better job explaining this issue to the american people.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this ruling simply allows these prisoners to REQUEST a hearing - nothing more. Yet, we've got wingnuts out there yelling that this will lead to known terrorists being released and Gingrich saying that the decision "will cost us a city".
June 17, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
i dont think this is a good issue for anyone but it does need to be known that the ruling involved the constitution which this adminstration ignored
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/mccains-pro-environment-talk-not-matching-his-record/
June 17, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a shame that so many don't believe in enforcing the rule of law and extending that right to those we have locked away. That they seem to believe we should be allowed to pick people up from around the world and lock them away without justifying why we are or what we believe they have done wrong.
Those same people, if asked, would assert that no country has the right to lock up an American citizen without letting them appear in a fair an impartial court to hear the charges against them with legitimate legal representation.
Then again, a lot of people watch Faux News and believe it when they claim these 'terrorists' will be able to goto "any court in the land to air their grievances about the food they are given and how soft their pillows are". Pathetic.
Were they told the prisoners will have to present in federal court on the evidence of their incarceration I'm sure the poll would read differently.
June 17, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama, a relative unknown, is leading against John McCain who's been around forever and the press once again spins this as a problem for Obama. Sigh.
June 17, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good timing (and post) Michael
June 17, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto DiegoUK.
June 17, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably my favorite number is that Obama does 20 pts(!) better on who can fix the gas price issue. Keep up the gas tax holiday policy, McCain!
June 17, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to the anchor on MSNBC this poll doesn't count, though, because the majority of Obama's support comes from young voters who won't turn out in the fall.
June 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
SCat, you comment is appropriate, MSNBC's is crap.
The important poll indicates "49%-45% lead among registered voters". I'd be interest in MSNBC's data that shows young registered voters are more likely to stay home that older registered voters. It just seems like BS.
Anecdotally, I had the pleasure of signing up a couple first time, just turned 18 years old voter over this last weekend. When discussing the option of registering for mail in ballot vs. polling place, both choose polling place because they were excited to participate in the process.
All I have to say to MSNBC is:
June 17, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
And another thing... Not to pick on you SCat, but rather to counter the MSNBC BS meme.
Just how many 75,000 plus, or even 10,000 participant rallies has anyone seen around McSame this year?
Turn-out is going to be huge, and it will go Obama!
June 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was so completely flabbergasted that the anchor would just make that sort of editorial comment in a very matter-of-fact sort of way without any proof to back it up. I guess all of McCain's bbqs for the press are paying off.
June 17, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a poorly-worded question. They misrepresented the factual situation in which the case was decided. As the majority noted in Boumediene:
By contrast, here is the full poll question:
June 17, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wallace says"Because they weren't "arrested." They were on a battlefield, fighting as "unlawful enemy combatants" as defined in the Geneva Conventions". but that is an issue that a court needs to determine. My understanding is that not all at Gitmo were on a balltefield and some were arrested by foreign govenments and sent there. For example the #1 at Gitmo who mastermined 9/11 was not on a battlefield unless you define the world as a battlefield. in which case the concept is useless.
But to me the big issue is if we should have civilian oversite of the military, which for me is a foundation issue. I do not want the military given a carte blance.
June 17, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Schrodingerscat: Since it was young voters who voted in record numbers in the primaries for Obama, there is no reason to doubt they won't do the same for the election. Elections are a bigger deal. Mark my words. Obama will be our next President
June 17, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree. I think the press just has these fallback themes they rely on - Obama has a white working class problem, white suburban women won't vote for Obama, Obama only appeals to the young - it drives me up the wall. I just think that it's intellectually lazy.
June 17, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to this McCain/Bush detainee logic, Al Qaeda spies would not be spies. Spies, according to the law, work for states.
June 17, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has three major things going for him: Bush, resources, and excitement. Of the three only one is manifest at this point. People hate Bush, which is allowing a talented, but relatively unknown black man take an early lead. Resources will come into play as the months go on, with Obama spreading the field like never before and blitzing the airwaves. And excitement will make itself known on Nov. 4, when millions of new voters flood the polls. So for Obama to be up at all right now is good news, especially after a bruising primary that only just ended. Barring some unforeseen event or Obama's inability to fight off the smears, this may be the high water mark for McCain.
June 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was another poll out yesterday on the excitement factor. Something like 34% of those planning on voting McCain said they were doing so "enthusiastically" versus 60-odd percent for Obama.
That's going to push turnout numbers both ways.
June 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink