Poll: National Race Tightens; Majority Says Obama Flip-Flopped On Key Issues
These new national poll numbers just out from Newsweek are a bit startling:
A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama's glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month's NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.
A caveat on whether this is a drop: Newsweek had previously been something of an outlier in Obama's favor; this poll is a bit more in line with other national surveys. But Newsweek says the FISA change and other shifts (though he didn't actually shift on faith-based initiatives) are damaging Obama:
Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.
That Obama is a typical politican/flip-flopper, of course, is the GOP/McCain message, just as it was in the past two presidential elections, and it's again being amplified by the national media, like last time and the time before. One has to hope that this doesn't mean it's gaining traction. On the other hand, the internals don't show any previous numbers for comparison, so it's hard to see whether there's been movement on this question.
The poll finds a swing in independents back to McCain:
In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June's NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.
On the other hand, the notion that Obama lost 14 points among indys seems hard to believe. But the survey finds the false Obama-is-a-Muslim rumor is alive and kicking:
Twelve percent of voters surveyed said that Obama was sworn in as a United States senator on a Qur'an, while 26 percent believe the Democratic candidate was raised as a Muslim and 39 percent believe he attended a Muslim school as a child growing up in Indonesia. None of these things is true.
Finally, at the end of the piece, Newsweek tells us the good news for Obama:
Concerns that he would be unable to unite the Democratic Party after the bruising fight against Clinton appear to be unfounded. Only 17 percent of former Clinton supporters say they will vote for McCain in the general election, and 19 percent of undecided voters are former supporters of the New York senator. But 61 percent of registered voters who support Obama say they support him strongly, compared to just 39 percent who say they strongly support McCain.
Happy weekend, everyone!
You too Greg!
July 11, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 12, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is with the newsweek polls? I thought the last one was wacky and overstated obama's support and I think that this one is wacky as well. I don't believe that there was this much swing from the last poll. The accurate number is probably somewhere in between and I definitely don't believe the indie polling.
July 11, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed, the indy number is really whacked. thanks jam ownit
July 11, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, have a good weekend as well gregg. This polling stuff is getting bizarre.
July 11, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Newsweek polls are whacky because the polling base they use is disproportionately weighted with Democrats. Thus, you get wild swings whenever democrats are not in sync with Obama's message.
July 11, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So who thinks the media will dismiss this latest Newsweek poll as they did the last one?
Anyone? No? Me neiter..
July 11, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
i went through the poll. they surveyed almost as many republicans as Dems while Dems have a 10% voter advantage for 2008.
also they polled way more old people than young people. I dont think 44% of the voters are over 60.
in fact I know this is false.
July 11, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the info I wanted to know.
Wasn't part of their defense of their last poll there are more Dems now and so they weighted their polling that way? Did they decide to shift their weighting? Sounds like it.
Seems odd.
July 11, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
they don't weight their polling by partisan ID. they just take what they get - a certain number of LVs or RVs. Rasmussen has an interesting post on his site about why most pollsters weight by party - precisely because it eliminates this kind of swing. while there might be big shifts in the electorate over time (e.g., there are about 7% more self-identified Dems in the electoral pool today than in 2004), most people don't change their partisan identifications frequently or quickly. so if you get 50% dems, 35% repubs and 15% indies one week, and 45% dems, 45% repubs, and 10% indies the next, you're probably not talking to two equally "representative" samples. this seems pretty basic to me, but pollsters have different opinions on sample construction and weighting for different variables. otherwise i guess we'd have only one.
still, newsweek gets a lot swingier because they don't make good polls (imo). weighting for party id, age, and other basic demographic categories just seems like a "duh."
July 12, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comparing the two polls for party ID numbers is quite strange.
June:
231 Republicans sampled, 23%, 36% with "lean Republican" included
324 Democrats sampled, 38%, 55% with "lean Democratic" included
307 Independents sampled, 35%
July:
315 Republicans sampled, 28%, 42% with leaners
324 Democrats sampled, 35%, 47% with leaners
357 Independents sampled, 33%
So in a month there's been an 8 point jump for Republicans in Dem/Rep party identification differential - a 14 point jump if you count leaners. In addition, I don't know how those sampled compares to what's used for the actual final result, but the later poll samples the same amount of Dems, but 80 more Repubs and 50 more Independents.
That just seems strange to me. While it wouldn't explain the change in Independent views, it does explain part of the precipitous drop from a 15 point lead to a 3 point lead. So did the previous poll oversample Dem/Dem leaners, does this one undersample them, or did party ID really change that much in fairly boring month?
July 11, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Newsweek pollsters use demographic factors and do NOT weight their polls by Party ID. That's why their last poll had 52% Democrats and only 28% Republicans. This poll somewhat oversamples Republicans.
There are separate problems with weighting a poll by party ID, i.e. what exactly IS current Party ID, we don't know what it is! But the data then don't jump around like a lizard on a hot plate from poll to poll!
July 11, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
AvatarMM: On that note, re: voters over 60. I do medical testing at hospitals and most of my patients are Medicare age on up. I always ask them if they think someone their age can handle the Presidency and every one of them has replied absolute not. Too old, no way, things slip with age, etc. Yet they will still vote for McCain. Obama is just not what they are used to or feel comfortable with, and so they go with the status quo. Really very sad. On that same note, they all have Medicare and a secondary insurance, and feel that our current health care system, though not perfect, is again, safe, and who knows what change would do; I feel these are the voters over 60 affecting polls such as this.
July 11, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
too bad the republicans didn't cut out medicare for them. that would of been a good reason for them to start voting democratic.
kinda like in Canada how the liberals got their way on everything and now the public said 'ah lets give the other party a chance now that we have everything we need'
July 11, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, me thinks that race is a bigger factor with these older voters than they're willing to admit.
July 11, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's called hitting the nail on the head!
July 11, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buckeye: I have absolutely no doubt about that. Most of my spouse's co-workers are voting for McCain because he is experienced and won't take their precious money from them for people less fortunate. What they are really saying is hell no, there is no way I am voting for a black guy. These are educated (?) men with stupid reasons for backing McCain, kind of like the MSM. They are, in fact, racist, and only their conscience knows the truth.
July 11, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly right. The only reason anyone could have for not voting for Obama is racism. And they don't like black people either probably. We know the kind. They have a lot of black friends sometimes, too. But they really hate black people no matter what they say. If they didn't hate black people, they would vote for Obama.
July 12, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's impressive how Amelie can read so much into so little. With a talent like that, it sounds like she's seriously underemployed. I don't have such a talent. In fact, I'm still looking for the clues that the people are absolutely-without-a-doubt racist.
I finally figured out what the term "progressive" means. It means you'll vote for Barack because he's black to demonstrate you're not a racist. I've been thinking it meant something else entirely.
July 12, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ready: It's not real hard to to figure out when the co-workers say, without any embarrassment, "No way will I vote for a black guy."
I think that is a pretty big "CLUE", amazing you have to search so hard for one. As for your comment I pasted below, what a bunch of ridiculous shit. With that comment, you are being an ass to just about everyone blogging here. Now, who is underemployed ?!
ready to blow a gasket said:
I finally figured out what the term "progressive" means. It means you'll vote for Barack because he's black to demonstrate you're not a racist. I've been thinking it meant something else entirely.
July 12, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what you originally said, Amelie. You said it was your interpretation, thus:
The bolded words are normally an idiomatic way of saying, "They didn't use these exact words, that's how I interpreted it." How can I know if you misspoke or meant something else? Please understand I can't read your mind, just your words.
If everyone blogging here voted for Obama because he's black and that act alone makes them feel entitled to call themselves progressive, then I'm right. There are many people who call themselves "progressive" on this site and very few who actually articulate progressive values in their posts and comments. I don't give a shit if I piss off conservatives or conservatives masquerading as progressives! If anyone reading my comment is in fact progressive, they won't take offense because they will know I'm not talking about them.
I've been reading these boards long enough to learn why specific people here support Obama. The most rabid contingency of those supporters is the least "progressive" in the old-school meaning. Therefore, the meaning of "progressive" appears to have been co-opted by those who feel superior about supporting a black candidate for president. Those are regularly the same people who make ageist or sexist comments to their heart's desire and still self-identify as progressive. As far as I'm concerned, voting for Obama does not give anyone the privilege to disparage other groups of people.
Personally, I can't even watch McCain, he is so repellent a speaker. I believe his physical injuries must cause him constant pain from arthritis and cripple him beyond belief. I think he probably takes lots of meds. However, I will criticize his positions or TV ads or tactics rather than accuse him of suffering from dementia just because he's in his 70s. Obama makes tons of gaffes! (Auschwitz, anyone? How many states are there again? Sweetie?) I see no definitive signs that McCain is suffering from dementia, as you say below.
July 12, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was really annoyed at your tone as I basically think I try to be a pretty fair person. Do unto others and all that. I also think I probably got more annoyed than I should have, so I apologize if I was harsh.
As far as the racist thing, I have always felt that the typed word, especially blogging and email, is easy to read the wrong way, as you cannot see expressions or hear inflections of voice, etc. You are right in the respect that I did not originally write what the guys at work say, but to be honest, it is hard for me to admit how blatantly blunt they are in their views, with no questioning if they are thinking of anyone other than themselves. They were the same with HRC, no way would they vote for a woman. I just don't understand how people can be so judgmental without knowing a person, naive I know, but that is how I feel. They try to justify their votes in public with rhetoric, but I know what is said in a small group and the real reason they will not vote for Obama. It would be the same if we had a male or female who was gay. These guys couldn't get past that.
As far as the progressive thing, frankly, labels bother me a lot. I don't try to interpret where someone is coming from but I do like to learn from others and also see how other parts of the country perceive things as opposed to how my part of the world might. In the end, I am voting for Obama for a few reasons, and I don't care if he green and from Mars. He supports more realistic health care ideas, not perfect, but better. He supports civil unions, again, I would wish he could just get past all that and say okay gay marriage, it is no big deal. He is going back and taxing the wealthy more, and I am glad, even though it will affect my family. He is also trying to make the corporations either keep the jobs here or pay the cost of sending them elsewhere. Most importantly, I want a Supreme Court that does not rule based on religion but rather on the Constitution. I can honestly say I never look at Obama and see a black person. I just see someone that can do a far better job than McCain.
I also realize you don't care who you piss off, and I do. It is a middle child thing, we always want everyone to try to get along.
July 13, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also ready: About the dementia thing. That is not said to be flippant nor disrespectful. The field I am in is right up that alley and I do see the signs. That does not mean he is to be made fun of, nor criticized because of it. However, he goes further than a gaffe on many occasions. In his age group, it is a scientific fact that 86% show some signs of dementia. I expect I will too. And I only mention it as I don't think he has the acumen to run our country.
July 13, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Did you hear Senator McCain yesterday? His best selling book, made into a movie, chronicles his POW experience of naming the defensive line of the Green Bay Packers rather than the names of his squadron. This was a very poignant moment in the movie. It is a story he has repeated over the years.
Yesterday in Pittsburgh, when asked what he thought about being there, he said the Steelers, and told the story of how while being a POW he named the defensive line of the STEELERS. That is more than a gaffe. That is some scary s**t. He forgot which team it was from a crucial documented moment in his life. And he didn't correct himself. He did not even catch his huge error!
July 13, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't hear about the Steelers gaffe. Yikes! Well, at least both the Steelers and Packers have yellow on their uniforms? Or, at least he didn't say the Pirates' defensive line? It could have been worse?
I'm not going to defend John McCain, but I always cringe when people make diagnoses without an office visit. It's a pet peeve of mine because it opens a Pandora's box. Hell, I get pissed on these boards when psychologists do it—it's unprofessional and unethical in their profession, yet people do it anyway. I don't prefer one party over the other; I'm bipartisan about it. I just think there's plenty of concrete fodder that's fair game to discuss about any politician. The media is undisciplined enough as it is without us perpetuating theories we can't definitively prove. After all, couldn't McCain have drug interactions or drug side effects that cause similar symptoms? We don't know for sure, so why go there?
In any case, no matter how scary you think McCain is, George Bush is proof enough that McCain could still get elected.
July 13, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If McCain is having drug interactions, as all drugs have a cause and affect, I would only ask that he be open with his medical records. The quick look with no ability to report due to time restrains and no note taking, etc., did him no favors. Actually, had he been forthright about his medical records release, not postponed for months only to make a mockery of open disclosure, I would not even bring up dementia. He did not allow my type of accusation to be proven false. But then again, if it is a prescription drug related problem (and I know they can mess up your cognizant reasoning) that still is a problem for a President.
I think for me, personally, being around patients with dementia all day long, and testing patients over and over due to dementia type symptoms, I feel I pick up on it faster, just an occupational hazard.
July 14, 2008 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the tempered response, Amelie. I have a tempered question for you: Don't you think the people your spouse works with would never vote for a Democrat no matter what race or gender? They sound like knee-jerk Republicans. Do you know what party (if any) they affiliate with? Do you know if they even vote? Did they vote in the primary? Just curious. Thanks.
July 13, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are right on the mark there. They all vote, and are all die hard Republicans. They are in law enforcement (Investigators) and I think that profession tends to lean more right than left. (Though I hate to label like that.) I guess what bothers me is bigotry, to be honest. I am expecting a higher standard and still shocked when I hear some of the things said. BTW, did you see the New Yorker cover? I guess it is everywhere, not just with the guys at work.
If this sounds coherent, I will be amazed. It is 2 a.m., better get some sleep. Take care. :0)
July 14, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I'm a middle child too. ;-)
July 13, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons were WORSHIPPED by African Americans for almost 2 decades. The Clintons did FAR MORE for African Americans than Obama . So how did the Clintons lose 90% of the Black Vote? Want to talk racism thats where its obvious.
July 12, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dennis, this crowd honestly believes that only white people can be racist. You can see it in other threads: If white people don't like Obama, it's because they don't like black people; if black people love Obama, it's because he's the best candidate. These are their words, not mine.
Unfortunately for the country - the world, actually - their blindness is their weakness. They're so busy alienating and mocking those they should be bringing into the fold, they're going to let McSame win this election.
I'll give you three guesses what their subsequent response will be. Hint: "Obama's detractors hate black people!" Let the excuses begin....
July 12, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. There can only be one reason for opposing Obama. Hatred of people who say they are black. Also hatred of people who say they are African American. These people know what they are talking about. You should listen to them.
July 12, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's detractors hate black people.
July 13, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. The only thing they don't like about Obama is that he says he's black. If he said he was white, they would love him.
July 13, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's detractors hate black people.
July 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Newsweek claims the poll matches census percentages .Except party identity.
Notes: Data are weighted so that sample demographics match Census Current Population Survey parameters for gender,
age, education, race, region, and population density.
July 12, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The CNN poll of polls has Obama up by 8.
July 11, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gallup has him up by 6, and trending up.
July 11, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And since when was FISA a 'key issue'. It's not, really. And public financing isn't even really an 'issue'. And Obama never changed his mind on faith-based initiatives.
The problem here is laziness. The media is repeating GOP talking points like they are the news.
July 11, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about the lazyness. There is some, but look who controls the right-wing media. The mcbush cheerleading squad. They want the status quo and a mcbush win. Mcbush is better for the corporate media.
July 11, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, painful as it is for me to learn that I can't speak for everyone on this, there are those of us for whom the Fourth Amendment matters. And if you think it's one of those things where, big deal, the only people who get caught up in this stuff are the terra-ists, well, you'd better think again. If you have any interest in finding out what's going on in the world around us, vis-Ã -vis national security, then you might consider the chilling effect that this kind of Big Brother legislation can have on reporting stories at Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq... anywhere the NSA's algorithms are targeted.
Yes, this shit matters.
July 11, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that FISA does matter, especially to the older people who fought the Republicans tooth and nail during the sixties and early seventies to have this spying curtailed. We were actively and passionately involved in securing our liberties and it makes us angry to see Sen. Obama piss it all away because of a weak back-bone or for a few extra votes. The 4th amendment is important and, in time, your generation will recognize just how important.
July 11, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your right, he had that benefit of the doubt, until he screwed the independents and libertarian.
The independents and libertarians don't vote genitalia, don't vote color, or sex, they vote on principles.
They can hold their noses on gay rights, etc.. upper income a promise of something from government doesn't mean much to independents and libertarians, they don't like BIG GOVERNMENT.
But even more than they don't go for the above, they don't like gvernment interfering in their lives and FISA mattered.
Obama had no second tier of support with these folks, and with the signature of Bush, the issue closed and done, their support is GONE!
Obama confused their support somehow with his Koolaid drinking dyed in the wool DEMS.
I'll never understand the Blunder, how he took the one wedge issue with independents and libertarians, mostly GOP registered in states without open primaries, and urinated all over these voters.
There is no second tier support, Obama doesn't seem to understand independents and libertarians.
If he did??
Then I can only surmise he has cold feet and doesn't want the office.
July 11, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So sorry, Michael A. I thought I was replying to JimboF. Ignore me!
July 11, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
They just have the four stories during the summer of an election year.
1. The Democractic candidate is a convictionless flip-flopping flip-flopper (Before the convention)
2. The Democratic candidate is the most liberalest liberal who ever darkened the door of a state or federal branch of governement.
3. Straight-talking Hero John McCain is a main of the utmost character, he's funny, he's noble and even when he's lying his ass off or pandering to people we secretly know he hates and whatever he says is the godshonest truth. (He was tortured for his country, you know. But don't ask him because he hates to talk about it.)
4. Oh those silly, squabbling, disunited Democrats! Har har har!
All facts will be forced into one of those frames throughout the summer. Just get used to it.
July 11, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
This changes rapidly, but last I checked, the top 3 stories were all pro-Obama, complete with pictures that make McCain look short and confused.
July 11, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alex, wake up. Much of it was not "pro-obama" but straight reporting. Imagine if Obama or his surrogates said the following things on economy:
1)I don't know much about the economy
2) Young people paying Social security for retirees a disgrace
3)Americans are in mental depression and become a nation of whiners economy.
Obama would be considered disqualified to run for President. I can't imagine MSM continue to claim Obama not strong on economy.
July 11, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two words for you: Confirmation bias. To the other side, the pieces that you think are pro-McCain sound like "straight reporting" too.
Meanwhile, they're tearing their hair out about McCain's perceived tailspin, and the fact that he can't catch a break in the liberal media.
It's pretty much a wash, except that we're ahead, have been ahead, and are still ahead, and their candidate ain't gettin any younger.
July 11, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the kind of meme MSM gets away with. Confirmation bias and crap. MSM- more acurately corporate media have strong finanical reasons to promote one candidate over the other and that's exactly what's happening.
If you're a corporation like Time Warner or NBC or GE or News Corp, you want a government de-regulated economy- we didn't go to war because of confirmation bias but because of Bull Shit.
Take Vicki Isman story- imagine Obama sexually connected to a lobbyist- it would be over. MSM loves McCain, but his campaign is so miserable they cannot have a straight face for crying out loud.
It's not preconceived notions, but it's agenda setting- subdtle and slow. Be on the look out for more blatant slant as we move close to the election day.
July 11, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not denying that the corporate media suck. Especially television news. Yes, it's biased in favor of the interests of the business class. As well as dumb people generally.
But confirmation bias is also real, and it makes us spend more time jumping up and down about slanted coverage than we absolutely need to.
I can tell you that if I were a Republican, and read a list of articles that includes "Obama Ahead By Eight" (picture of Obama staring down at shorter McCain), "Obama Ad Ties McCain to Bush" (helpful picture of McCain with Bush), plus various other pieces about Obama's attack on McCain's energy policy, and his plan for a statesmanlike trip abroad, I'd be jumping up and down too.
Full disclosure: I've got friends who work at CNN, including producers. They like Obama.
July 11, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are obviously a guy in the know, little Alex. Would you mind of I start checking with you before I comment to make sure what I'm saying is right. Full disclosure. I know the names of people in high places. I can't spell them all, but I know them. I wish I could share the names I know, but those names are hidden knowledge. You know?
July 12, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, they get outvoted in the production meetings all the time? CNN sucks in its coverage. It was and still is biased toward the clintons and is biased toward mcbush as well. The corporate candidates. Obama, fuggetaboutit.
July 12, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if they aren't more issues oriented than we think. They have bias, of course, but maybe the bias is toward positions rather than people. I thought CNN was very careful in the way they handled Jesse Jackson's open mic incident. I just don't get the feeling they favor McCain. Hillary maybe, but not McCain.
July 12, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know enough people at CNN to make any claim about overall editorial policy. "Producers" are not editors. And I doubt that any generalization would be 100% true, in any case. What I am saying is that the reality is complicated, and involves particular persons and institutions, not just abstractions like "the MSM."
July 12, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My experience with friends in the media is that if they like a candidate, they bend over backwards to make sure that is NOT reflected in their coverage. Polls show reporters are overwhelmingly Democrats. Did that stop them from repeating the Swift Boat lies, or saying Kerry was a flip-flopper, or Al Gore invented the internet? Nope. They don't want it to appear they are defending the guy they prefer. They are super sensitve to being labeled "the liberal media", and the right uses them to push them into a box. The reason they repeat McCain campaign speak is because they are afraid of being accused of being Pro-Obama.
I contend the mass media has been totally anti Obama ever since the 1st Saturday night live skit accusing them of it. They cut Hilary enourmous slack as she damaged Obama in her senseless quest for glory in the last month of her campaign. She got away with downing shots, saying only she could get whites to vote for her, comparing Florida and Michigan with slavery, and pandering across Puerto Rico to build up popular votes from people who can't vote in November, with almost no criticism.
Not convinced? Look at what McCain got away with this week, between Gramm, Viagra, and Iraq calling for a time table.
I rest my case.
Maybe Obama is letting them pile on him now, so when he accuses them of being Pro-McCain, he'll plenty of proof. Like this week. He took more flak for letting his daughters be interviewed than McCain took for not knowing that he voted against making insurance companies cover birth control. One is irrelevant...the other probably effects 30 million women.
July 13, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
My experience with friends in the media is that if they like a candidate, they bend over backwards to make sure that is NOT reflected in their coverage. Polls show reporters are overwhelmingly Democrats. Did that stop them from repeating the Swift Boat lies, or saying Kerry was a flip-flopper, or Al Gore invented the internet? Nope. They don't want it to appear they are defending the guy they prefer. They are super sensitve to being labeled "the liberal media", and the right uses them to push them into a box. The reason they repeat McCain campaign speak is because they are afraid of being accused of being Pro-Obama.
I contend the mass media has been totally anti Obama ever since the 1st Saturday night live skit accusing them of it. They cut Hilary enourmous slack as she damaged Obama in her senseless quest for glory in the last month of her campaign. She got away with downing shots, saying only she could get whites to vote for her, comparing Florida and Michigan with slavery, and pandering across Puerto Rico to build up popular votes from people who can't vote in November, with almost no criticism.
Not convinced? Look at what McCain got away with this week, between Gramm, Viagra, and Iraq calling for a time table.
I rest my case.
Maybe Obama is letting them pile on him now, so when he accuses them of being Pro-McCain, he'll plenty of proof. Like this week. He took more flak for letting his daughters be interviewed than McCain took for not knowing that he voted against making insurance companies cover birth control. One is irrelevant...the other probably effects 30 million women.
July 13, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got the summer campaign talking points right there, in Obama's nut shell.
July 11, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA is not a key issue? Gutting the Fourth amendment is not a key issue? Shutting down any chance of holding the telecoms or Bush accountable for warrantless searches is not an issue?
What WOULD you consider an issue?
July 11, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama's most fervent supporters aren't issues voters. period. they are personality cultists and party loyalists. they either put person or party before policy.
July 13, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bad news, but not a huge surprise. Newsweek, as I said a couple of weeks ago, is one of the swingy-iest of the swinging polls. It magnifies whatever blip is happening in the moment. Obama was having a good post-primary moment and the last 2-3 weeks have not been great. That's it.
45 days until the convention. It's coming quick.
July 11, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
not quick enough. While it's exciting being part of all of the 'he said she said', and all of the aimless nuances, and all of the righteous anger (i.e. FISA) it still will be a relief for December 1 to roll by and all of this behind us.
July 11, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is simply a ploy by Newsweek to get the Faux Noise crowd to give their polls credibility.
July 11, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This just shows how the left can't start eating their own every time Obama doesn't do exactly what they want him to do, or say exactly what they want him to say. We don't have this in the bag, and getting hysterical and acting like a bunch of idiots every time he isn't superman is going to lose us this election. Quit helping the Republicans. Democrats are exceptional at losing, it is time we stop shooting ourselves in the foot!
And donate to Obama goddamnit! He isn't made of money but the Republicans are!!
July 11, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Supporters need to tone it down a little and Obama needs to ramp up his demeanor when he explains where he stands. Instead of playing "Joe Cool" maybe he needs a tougher tone on why these issues aren't flips or flops. They're just going to peg him every which way to Sunday so he might as well step it up a notch.
July 11, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or..., this just shows how Democrats can't repeatedly poke their progressive base in the eye and expect to come out of it unscathed.
Yes, yes, I realize that Volume 10, page 341 of the Democratic Campaign Bible states that any observable affiliation with the left in a national campaign is political suicide. It happened in 1972, therefore this must forever be the accepted political wisdom.
Of course, Ralph Nader would have been a non-entity in 2000 if Gore hadn't "moderated" himself into a walking marshmallow. He couldn't even be bothered to toss an occasional bone to the base.
Yet Democratic operatives never seem to learn. I would've bet the farm that Obama's people were too smart to let this happen again, but here you go. Might this also have anything to do with his faltering donations from small donors?
There's still time for the Obama campaign to correct its course, but first they need to crawl out from that milquetoast bath that's been sinking Democrats for these many, many years.
July 11, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No the fact is 1/3 of the population is declared Democrat, 1/3 Independent, and 1/3 Republican. 20-30% of those who identify as Democrat are the extreme left-wing nuts, just like 20-30% of the Republican Party are right-wing nuts, and everyone else falls somewhere in-between. Therefore, for ANY person to win they MUST attract from that middle. And if ANY politician thinks they can win by only focusing on that 20% of the far right or far left, they are highly mistaken as are you in this post.
July 11, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a matter of "focusing" on that extreme twenty percent. It's a matter of occasionally acknowledging them and working in their favor.
Otherwise, you lose those voters -- a not insignificant bloc.
Your chosen strategy is exactly the one pursued by Al Gore and John Kerry. As such, it has no credibility. It's a recipe to lose.
July 11, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. The only reasonable people left in America are the ones who call themselves "Independents." Anyone can see what a reasonable statement that is. It must be terrible to be in that 1/3 that is reasonable when you are surrounded on all sides by nuts. I'm in denial about it myself. I cling to the belief that there are smart, reasonable people in both parties and that the people who hold extreme views are at the fringe. You just run into more of them here than in other places.
July 12, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
that is utter nonsense. 'independent' doesn't mean 'centrist'.
July 13, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Centrists are smart, too.
July 13, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The only way to hold any politician accountable is to make it clear that there is a limit to the slack you are willing to cut him, and if he pulls past that, there will be a political cost to him.
July 12, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the political cost Obama must pay on FISA is to have the left rip on him, thus helping McCain win. Now exactly how does President McCain benefit the progressive cause?
The mistake in 2000 was not that Gore moved the the middle. The mistake was the idiots who wasted their votes on Nader. The only greater idiocy is to do it again this year, and tear down a much better guy with a much better chance.
If Obama had voted against FISA, there would be ads on TV right now claiming he'd rather protect the trial lawyers, than protect the American people. Instead, all McCain can do is call him a flip flopper. So, please, unless you want McCain to win, stop parroting his spin. If you want FISA fixed, there's a much better chance with President Obama than with President McCain. So stop helping McCain win.
July 13, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
ah but there's the rub.
this isn't about some 'WE' that you imagine. appeals to party loyalty don't work on independents. getting a dem elected isn't 'our' priority. thinking that independents on the left and civil libertarians should see some inherent wisdom or value in electing a democrat, in spite of the issues is the source of the problem, not the solution to it.
July 13, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not at all surprised that Obama's FISA vote is sinking him like a stone.
Even those who don't care so much about the issue per se do care about politicians standing for their principles.
July 11, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's less about the average American caring about FISA, than it is about their hearing the term flip flop, to describe Obama's actions.
It's an inane word that the MSM loves to use but is damaging to the political process. A well thought out change of heart, is not the same as a cynical ploy to get more votes.
The average person changes their minds on important issues concerning their lives, on an ongoing basis. The same is true for business. But imagine what it would be like if every time one changed their minds, we were labeled, "flip floppers"?
For some time, the media has increasingly forced politicians away from more nuanced and thoughtful views into a binary world of one's and zeros. It's dogma over context, 24/7.
July 11, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's true. And it appears Obama's cynical ploy to get more votes has cost him dearly.
July 12, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You undermine your own case for being able to change your mind when you apply it to his FISA vote. This was one case where if he had NOT changed his mind, he would be in a better state.
And for all the people that think FISA is "no big deal." Try to claim you're not a hypocrite if you'd said the same thing if we were talking about McCain, or, horror of horros, Clinton. I'm certain there'd be all this yammering about principles, the rule of law, etc.
Here's a simplification for those who don't get it: either you're for the rule of law, or you're not.
I'm for the rule of law, and that's why I condemn Obama for his FISA capitulation. It will NOT give him more votes, it will NOT protect him from attacks from the GOP. It gives him no benefit at all, and yet he capitulated against his own stated previous position. Just because McCain is far worse (and no way I'd vote for him, or some 3rd party which amounts to the same thing), I'm not going to pretend Obama didn't totally screw up, and screw us, the citizens. And, he was arrogant about it besides with his platitudinal response to the outrage. So, now instead of being pretty happy with him as the nominee, I'm just going to hold my nose, and put my money elsewhere, like the ACLU and ActBLUE, who, unlike both Obama and McCain, fight for their core principles.
--Ron
July 12, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
But...but...what about all those voters who were just begging Congress to let George W. Bush eavesdrop on their phone calls?
July 11, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gall up has him up by 6 points...biggest margin in the last few weeks. Anyway, if this new poll has any validity, the Newsweek/MSNBC and tne MSM should send a self-congratulatory note to themselves. They're trying hard for a close race from all the coverage.
David AH Gregory asks, why why Obama has owned the issue, why why why? Why does he look elite, why why why?
July 11, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kash, David Gregory is a guy that I've never been a fan of - but he has been particularly hacktastic over the past month or so. MSNBC as a whole(outside of Olbermann and Maddow) has been a disgrace, a network where the talking heads wax poetic about Obama's "weakness" because he isn't up by a larger margin. For Christs sake, I heard Scarborough talk this morning about how Americans aren't convinced that Barack loves America. Are you shitting me? I think I'm slowly slipping into madness.
July 11, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's really frightening is compare the msnbc stuff to fox and abc and msnbc looks semi-middle of the road. I can't stand gregory either. You would think after he colluded with the king's administration in the run-up to the war that he would be at least semi-moderate. He sounds more and more like another right-wing hack. It really is disgusting the state of our media.
It also makes you wonder what info the europeans are getting in their media. They love obama and can't stand mcbush. Obviously the info that they are getting is coming from their media, which I am sure is 180 degrees different from the info we get. I wish there was something that could be done about the lying, corporate right-wing us media. It really is pathetic.
July 11, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you read the European media before the Iraq War, you'd have known a lot more about why there was no reason for war than did an amazing number of establishment Democrats.
The difference is that people outside the United States are not totally intimidated out of making alternative arguments and taking other perspectives on the issues. As long as the Democratic Party makes the Republican arguments for them, you cannot expect the MSM to go out of its ways to be outside the box of conventional American wisdom.
Democrats do not lead. Republicans lead. Republicans define the argument. Republicans set the agenda. Republicans generate the talking points. The MSM just acts like lap dogs. Why should any of them stick their neck out if Democratic officials are too craven to do so?
If you had about 30 establishment Democrats strongly, relentlessly, repeating over and over and over again different arguments, eventually those arguments would get into the MSM. Instead, they just surrender.
July 11, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're 100 percent correct. Democrats have made their own bed. McCain has flip-flopped twice as much as Obama, but the latter will suffer the consequences more because of Democrats' past behavior.
The Democratic Party has a reputation of having no core values and a chronic case of spinelessness because of their unwillingness to fight for their constituents' priorities.
For internal Dem consultants, winning an election is like threading a needle. For Republicans, it's about donning brass knuckles. I have hope that Democrats will eventually be a party that stands for something, but the Obama campaign has proven over the past month that we're not there yet.
July 11, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent diagnosis, bluebell.
More importantly, you really get to what makes Obama's post-primary move to the so-called "center" so agonizing: Dems from supposed deep-red states like Tester ran hard on a pro-civil liberties platform and won, contrary to the sage advice of Schumer, Clinton, Ford and the rest of the DLC cabal.
July 11, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too bad because a principled stand by Obama on FISA would have strengthened the Democrats hand in the debate about national security and promoted the stance that it is possible to enjoy civil liberties and national security simultaneously. Sen. Obama could have taken this opportunity to dispute the Republican espoused belief that it is necessary to give up one to enjoy the other. This would of given the American people a chance to get to know him better and witness his leadership. As it turns out he played the safe hand and now even fewer people can honestly say they truly know Sen. Obama. After spending the many months of this primary season supporting a man I thought I knew and understood, I am now finding him a stranger. I can not vote for a candidate that has undone in five minutes, with his yes vote on FISA, what I and many of my friends spent years fighting for during our youth in the sixties. Many of you may think of us as, "Old Hippies," but we were passionate about our country and fought hard for civil liberties and our constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech and privacy. We saw first hand how unchecked government spying corrupted our representatives and eroded our freedoms. Many of us still have this passion and put our trust in Sen. Obama because he stated he would fight the good fight to preserve our constitution and stop the Republicans from further trampling on our Bill of Rights. I feel betrayed by Sen. Obama's failure to stand firm behind his expressed support for the 4th amendment and his promise to filibuster any bill that included immunity for the Tel-Coms. I fail to see how a weak, spineless candidate could possibly be a strong president; I will not vote for him in November.
July 11, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes, a million times yes.
This more than anything is what pisses my off about Obama's vote.
I've said it before: He decided to effectively "teach" his followers that it's OK to give up liberties in return for perceived security, when he could have, and should have, done the exact opposite.
Obama seriously underestimated the American people this time. Americans are ready to end the bullshit, and they thought Obama was the guy to do it.
July 12, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Michael. As little as I watch TV, I do get the BBC news, and it really is so different from ours. When they discuss Iraq, for instance, they give statics of dead, wounded, and the whole segment just seems factually based rather than personality based, which is how I view our news. Here, MSM is more about the deliverer than quality content delivery.
July 11, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Amelie, I sometimes listen to the bbc on the radio and agree that it is completely different and more factual. What's truly amazing about the bbc is that it is government run and yet is more accurate than our right-wing corporate media. Isn't that absurd when you think about it.
July 11, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregory has become one of the worst political hacks on TV. He is horrible. If you want the latest Republican Conventional Wisdom, just listen to David Gregory. Ugghhhh.
July 11, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, and apparently his wife is one of the VPs in Freddie Mac...do the math.
July 11, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kristi: They should have given that spot to Rachel Maddow. Gregory, whichever side he is on (giving him the benefit of doubt) is just BORING.
July 11, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amelie you don't have to give David Gregory the benefit of doubt. It's useful to remember he was NBC's White House correspondent selling Iraq war.
July 11, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you on that. He was one of the hacks selling the war. God, I wish just one of those gd reporters would have let the world know what was going on and asked a freaking, gd question. They were acting as props to sell the war and being fed softball questions to ask the king. WTF, if they would have let the world know that, we wouldn't be in that quagmire today and hundreds of thousands of women and children, along with 4000 american troops, would be alive today. What a travesty. How do these people sleep at night? I know I couldn't.
July 11, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right kash.
July 11, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am wondering why it is not reported that Obama is ahead in Arizona. Is there any reason why?
In any case, with all the bad week of McSameBush (interview about Viagra) and its fiasco about the mental recession, it is not worth talking about McSameBush, and I am sure the Gallup poll of today reflects it.
Yes, David Gregory is probably the worse of MSNBC,he is close to the CNN gang: Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer...
July 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate it when people act like this faith-based initiative is some kind of flip-flop. He has been talking about his support for it at least since The Audacity of Hope. Can anyone show me anything different that he said?
People (including those in the MSM) are surprised when he has a position that is different than what the typical left wing position is and instead of doing their homework, many are assuming that he changed positions. I'm getting so sick of the MSM feeding this nonsense.
July 11, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that when he talks about it, he means to do it requiring the recipients of federal money to abide by non-discriminatory hiring practices and of course to not require recipient's of aid (that comes from federal dollars) to practice a certain religion.
You know, the way it always was.
July 11, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of its merits, the faith based initiative is a Republican initiative based on a Republican argument. When Obama supports it, he affirms the Republican argument. That is all the MSMS reports.
July 11, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It'd be nice if the MSM saw it as an initiative based off of an argument and stopped putting Republican or Democrat before everything. It is what it is, and it is very compatible with his principles and ideas of government.
July 11, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an "idea of governement": the disparate congregations charged with administering faith-based assistance to the poor represent a markedly inferior substitute for the power of the state.
After all, we want to take a comprehensive and systematic approach towards dealing with the deep social damage brought about by transnational corporations whose monstrous power dwarfs that of any church, synagogue or mosque that could ever be.
July 11, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly so. If private groups (whether religious or secular) can give more bang for the buck than government agencies, then fine, but quite often that is not the case.
There was a story on the CNN web site just last week about how 85 million dollars worth of supplies intended for victims of Hurricane Katrina sat unused and undistributed in a FEMA warehouse for 2 years (at a cost of a $1 million a year for storage) and finally ended up being given away as surplus.
At least part of the problem (but by no means all, of course -- FEMA needs to explain why those donated supplies weren't distributed at the outset, Mississippi's surplus agency needs to explain why they were not, as they claimed, aware that there was any need for the supplies, and the state of Louisiana needs to explain why they never even asked for any of the surplus) was that Mississippi (and maybe Louisiana, too, I don't know) was apparently relying on volunteer organizations to organize the obtaining and distribution of those supplies to people in need. And that is just not something they were equipped to do. They can supply the manpower for the physical distribution, but there's a certain amount of expertise that is needed to navigate government red tape that most volunteer organizations don't have.
July 12, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you trying to say that ALL Republican "ideas" are bad ideas? Why is it not ok to agree with some Republican ideas? I personally don't like the idea of tax-payer money going to religious organizations, and if those organizations are going to use those tax dollars to indoctrinate then I'm against the idea, but if there is no religious or "religious moral" litmus test to those seeking those government services then I'm fine with it.
But to automatically say that because something is a Republican idea makes it a bad idea simply because it is a "Republcian" idea, which you are suggesting, is dumb. It's no wonder our country is so divided.
July 11, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you believe it is enough to win in November (after which the Bushies will probably connive in a stock market crash or something wretched) only to be turned out of office 4 years later with Americans wondering why Democrats are even worse Republicans than Repubicans, adopting Republican arguments is a good tactic as we go forth in the future of Republican government.
Unless we change the argument, we will never ever have anything more than the occasional tactical victory.
The Republicans have deliberately, ruthlessly, and skillfully planned and implemented the destruction of the New Deal and the destruction of the argument that governed the United States for 50 years.
To change that, requires changing the argument. A little nuance here embracing a Republican argument that government is really worthless and all things can be accomplished by privatizing everything in the public square may not seem like much, but "faith based" is a concession to movement conservatism. Government is bad. Even the worst church can do a better job. You don't need universal health care. The church will help you when you are sick....
We lie to ourselves that we're winning a little something on an issue but all we're doing is making the next argument harder to make.
Anyway, to those of you who keep telling me that Republican ideas can be good and it's divisive to fight against them - to that I say, then what difference does it make if we don't elect Obama? If the Republican argument is just fine, why change? If we need change, why are we so terrified of making different arguments?
July 11, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You MISSED the entire point. All I am saying is that just because a program is instituted by a Republican does NOT make it inherently bad. That is what you are asking us to do, write off any and all policies and programs that come out of the Republican Party. That is stupid. Democrats have had many bad ideas/policies too. Republicans have had some good ideas and policies just as have the Democrats.
As for me, I am an Atheist and that is why I don't like the idea of tax dollars going to any religious organization if they are using those funds to indoctrinate or have any sort of religious "litmus test" before receiving those benefits. If they only perform the "administrative" side of the programs then fine, I have no problem with it. You shouldn't either, it costs us, taxpayers, much less that way.
July 11, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are missing the philosophical basis of the "faith based" argument. The argument is that government can't do anything worthwhile so it is inherently better to have churches deliver social services like they did back in the 1800's before social security, medicare, etc. and why tax people when they can just give money to the churches directly? The Republicans aren't selling a little program. They are selling the big argument. Religious organizations have delivered social services for decades. Catholic Charities is as good an example as any. But they've competed on the basis of being the best provider of a necessary SOCIAL service not as a replacement for social services.
The little program is no big deal. Losing the argument is a huge deal.
July 11, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point isn't that the government can't do anything, but that there are things that faith based groups can offer that the government can't (and there would be a problem if the government was offering the same things as faith-based organizations). I'm agnostic, so I'm nowhere near religious and want religion out of the government and government out of religion, but to me his conditions seem fair and if it actually works and the organizations follow the rules, then it seems fine with me. I thought I remember reading that the ACLU supports what he is proposing, since it is completely non-discriminatory, although I'm too lazy to look that up right now.
July 11, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
even if you take into account the fall out of fisa this is still a giant fall........... pew poll obama was up by 8 ,so obama probably up by 7 points..........since whine-gate and jesse jackson i'm sure obama might of got a boost .........
July 11, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't understand, for the life of me, why an independent would find McCain a better choice than Obama - even if they were correct in charging him with flip-flopping. I just can't.
July 11, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because you are myopic and not objective.
July 11, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
...says the person with the Obama "Pet Rock" avatar... that's good irony.
July 11, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. Obama is obviously a better choice for President than McCain. What can those people be thinking? They're worse than the people who voted for Hillary Clinton. Thye're just stupid is all. And old, too. And some of them are women, you know. And what really kills me is when the smart, successful ones pick McCain. How dumb can you get?
July 12, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
just because obama loses support among independents doesn't mean they are moving over to mccain. even as an independent who understands duverger's law, just because i don't support obama doesn't mean i would vote for mccain. it just means that there is a limit to the willingness of voters to participate in voting against the greater of two evils. and this limit is directly related to the degree of daylight between the two evils. which is the reason why the naderite mantra was all about there being 'no difference' between the two parties. a hyperbolic argument but indicative nonetheless.
July 13, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
the poll numbers are not just wacky but also, as usual, will give those Sunday talking heads another chance to call Obama "flip-flopper" through the weekend cicle I think and that's really f**ked up.
July 11, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not all "flips" are equal.
Faith-based pandering, not a big deal.
Fourth Amendment, big deal. For those who understand the FISA issue, Obama's cave was very disturbing. For the vast majority of US citizens who don't give a rat's ass, there's still the undisguised breaking of an unambiguous promise, which is all to easy to understand.
July 11, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
He hasn't flipped on faith-based programs. As I mentioned in my little rant above, he talked about his support for them in The Audacity of Hope. I have never seen anything about him opposing them as long as they meet the conditions that he sets out. Let me know if you've seen anything different.
July 11, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And exactly which provision of the law is it, that you believe violates the Fourth Amendment?
July 11, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take these polls with grain of salt.
The real poll is the election results. People will say anything on these news company polls.
July 11, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big surprise huh? You flip flop on a bunch of high profile issues one after the other and the public actually notices. Shocking isn't it?
If Obama had not been convinced to pander to the corporate powers and the right on FISA and on the faith based crap he would have been fine. The "flip flop" on campaign finance on it's own would be nothing. He and his smart guys advising him have now put on exactly the persona McCain and company have wanted him to put on. He can still win the election, but in the dress and heels he has chosen to slip into it will be a whole lot harder than before.
July 11, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me where he opposed faith based programs. I have only seen him mentioning support for those programs, although meeting the conditions of not being prosthelatizing or discriminatory.
July 11, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR FISA OPPONENTS!!!
July 11, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heck yeah it is. JOHN MCCAIN AND THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HE PICKS WILL FIX FISA AND PROTECT OUR CIVIL RIGHTS!!
July 11, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, nice Republican talking points. "Dress and heels", huh? Classy.
July 11, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point was that is exactly how the Republicans will portray him. You can be offended that I used the characterization they will use or you can realize that Obama and his wise men chose to play right into their hands and allow that characterization from now until the election.
The astounding thing is that the oh so smart DC Dems who use their voodoo to convince candidates to do this crap continue to have the upper hand despite the universally negative outcome of the strategy in national elections. It really is incredible both that they are not thoroughly discredited and that candidates like Obama keep falling for the same flawed strategy. Problem is, once you start down that road it's like a Pentagon "overrun" on a weapons system or defense program. You've already invested so much in the idea that it is nearly impossible to reverse or eliminate the strategy and go with something new.
He can still win, it' just that he is hindering his own chances listening to those wise fools instead of listening to the people who catapulted him to the top, aka the little people and the netroots and the Moveon.org types. That's who won it for Obama. That is who he "owes" something to. But he clearly doesn't think so. He is focused now on his constituency in DC: corporations, lobbyists, the powerful interests of the wealthy, the pundits and so on. It's possible, though improbable at this point, that he will come to his senses and be the "change" he claimed he was going to be. My fingers are crossed but my hopes are not high.
July 11, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think so, eh? And this explains why being against torture before he was for, against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them, for abortion before he was against it, against the Talibevangelicals before he was for them, translates into maverick-y "straight talk" when coming from McCain?
I'm disappointed with the FISA vote too, but it's the only thing cited that could be called a "flip-flop" on Obama's part. Meanwhile, McCain's closet overflows with unremarked thong sandals.
July 11, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
In politics what matters is not the truth. What matters is what people think is the truth. Republicans get it. Many on our side do not.
Tactically speaking, the Republican objective is to give the impression that Obama is "just like" other Democrats who voters mistrust and think of as "typical" politicians. Arguing the minutae in his defense does no good. In terms of influencing the outcome of the election, the point of the smear is to tarnish the reputation or influence the public perception of the opponent whether or not it is true. All the enemy needs is a little cooperation from the Democratic candidate in order to carry out the smear effectively. Obama has done precisely what they need. Republicans have been perfecting this method for about 60 years now literally.
Democrats still have no effective counter to this tactic when they refuse to go on the attack and go after the Republican's policies from the left (of the Republican position, not necessarily from the most liberal possible position available). And it has to be from the left because you cannot effectively criticize them when you essentially hold the same policy position as they do. That is one reason, for example, why the criticism that the war in Iraq was mismanaged without being against the war to begin with is so weak and ineffective.
Thus, the weakness of Obama's FISA flip flop is revealed. Now that he essentially has conceded the Republican position, how can he stand up for the Constitution when it is undermined by bogus "security" arguments? He can't because he now also spouts the same bogus argument. Democrats nueter themselves when they run away from their own positions. The other inconsistencies whether true or not just add fuel to this fire and lend credence to the idea he will change positions for politically expedient reasons. Explaining the nuance of the changed position is utterly ineffective (as Republicans know well).
Consistency counts. So what is regarded by the Obama camp as "adjustments" toward the center that only the left objects to really are far more than that and often fatal to Democratic candidacies. Ask John Kerry about that. Or better yet, ask Hillary about that after voting for the Iraq war resolution for purely political reasons---which she knew at the time was the wrong thing to do. She paid for it dearly and is not the nominee because of it. Now Obama commits the same error on multiple issues and it plays right into Republican hands. By doing these things, Obama helps keep McCain in contention instead of solidifying his support nationwide against continued Republican rule. Every time he moves to the center or panders to right wing sympathies (the SCOTUS gun decision, the faith based crap, excoriating black men about fatherhood and the importance of parenting, etc.) and blurs the distinction between Democrats and Republicans the McCain camp bellows a mighty Huzzah in Obama's honor and they hail him for keeping them in the game.
July 13, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
it actually says they weighted the answers to correspond to census data. But frankly, the previous poll was wacky. No one else had Obama at +15
July 11, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too many perceived changes at once. Makes Obama look weak.
July 11, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And there is the key word, PERCEIVED.
July 11, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
His Flip-Flop on FISA goes along way to contributing to his present poll position.Let him keep insulting independents intelligence with bogus FISA arguments or he can keep moving to "the center" he of course will move off the polling scale.
July 11, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you build a theory of voter psychology on a single data point, you produce a theory that is worth precisely diddlysquat.
July 11, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 11, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeedy! Why not choose the real thing? But the DINO's in Washington still don't believe it.
July 11, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at this week's Gallup poll numbers, which are trending up, I can confidently conclude that Obama's opposition to FISA has helped him with independents and Libras, who feel, as a group, that it is a mistake to fetishize any single issue, especially when the moon is in the seventh house.
July 11, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow. You totally nailed it. Speaking as an Independent (although I prefer "unaffiliated voter") and a Libra: props to you for your astute and accurate analysis of this important voting bloc.
July 12, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, but when did the Newsweek poll become the "definitive one" in polling?
Only when it fits into the narrative to criticize Obama.
Guess what? Obama is still ahead.
July 11, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do they normally ask the overall voting preference first before asking these asinine questions? This sounds almost like a push poll.
July 11, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking the same thing. Who are the idiots who still believe this sh*t anyway?
July 11, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're part of the crowd that still think Bush is doing a good job.
July 11, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
People hear he is buying the Republican arguments. They thought they were buying change.
July 11, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, look at the internals, especially the income breakdown. He's dropping like a stone because he's switched designers. The American people can not, and will not, stand for a candidate who wears Armani. I know this is just a single poll, but dude, I know how the voters think.
July 11, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should just strike back forthrightly, with an ad detailing McCain's many, many, many, many flip-flops.
I'm beginning to think that this election more than any other in my lifetime is going to be decided by debates. McCain doesn't have a prayer when people see the two of them side by side. It's just going to be no contest.
But that doesn't mean the Republicans should be allowed to get away with this shit in the meanwhile. Hit back, hard and fast. Knock him to the ground, and don't let him get back up.
July 11, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, that is one choice.
Unfortunately, that is a choice the Republicans would love for him to make at this point. Their entire strategy is to cover BOTH of them so thick in mud and muck that voters no longer see any discernable difference between the two choices. That puts them in contention. That's why they do it and they do it every single time. The only people who have been watching this phenomenon for years but still don't get it are the Democratic consultants and Congressmen, Senators and other similar types who reside in Washington, DC.
All the Republicans get it no matter where they live. Why do we entrust these important elections to people who can't see this? It's a mystery to me.
July 11, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
AvatarMM and jlowery, I couldn't find details of the poll. Please post a link.
Frustratingly, the Newsweek article seems to acknowledge a possible problem: "Princeton Survey Research Associates, which conducted the poll for NEWSWEEK, says some of the discrepancy between the two most recent polls may be explained by sampling error."
At which point in the story, I would have expected Newsweek to tell us the poll's sample size and theoretical margin of error.
No such luck.
But the supposed 14-point drop in support among independents over a single month rings alarm bells.
Every self-respecting pollster has to publish, at a minimum, the size of their sample, and a warning that the margin of error increases for every breakdown into subcategories.
July 11, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Obama's fault for not attacking McCain every time he pulls a 180 degree flip-flop. He's let the GOP put that tag on him, and now even if he levels it at McCain it will look like he's just copying the attack against him.
I haven't been impressed with Obama's campaign since he decided to crawl across the finish line in the primary.
July 11, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. He's been consistently ahead of McCain since May. With a lead like that, he really ought to have put this thing away by now. And yet he seems unable to close the deal, unable to finish the job. I mean, look at the intrade predictions on the right side of the screen. A rapid rise, and then leveling off, at about 64-65%. Not the kind of continued progress you want to see.
July 11, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, "close the deal", "schmose the schmeal" - stop with this Hillary-inspired nonsense.
July 11, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I gotta call it the way I see it. Tragically, this pattern reminds me exactly of Obama's problem when he went up against Hillary.
There, too, he kept winning the small battles -- always just slightly ahead -- but never in the important states, and never by enough to really make a difference.
And we all know how that ended up.
July 11, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has NO problem there - he won over Hillary, and he'll win over McCain. He needs to win, not close the so-called "deal".
July 11, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that all you care about? Winning?
Well, yeah, I admit that Obama is going to win. But, sadly, no matter how often he wins, or by how much, he's never going to win *enough* to quiet the depressive doomsayers in his own party. Because they are inexhaustible.
i.e, ;->
July 11, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You people are ignoring the race factor in the calculus.
Racism may be dying out, but it's still alive and well.
I think Obama's been running a fine campaign.
He will continue to do so.
July 11, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohmigod, what do I have to do to get people to hear the snark here?
Up is down. Black is white. Obama's lead means he's actually a terrible candidate. John McCain is a lithe, sexy mofo.
Wake up and smell the victory, folks.
July 11, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I get it now.
But there is a lot of shit going around tonight, and it's sometimes hard to separarte the shinola from the shit, especially when one posts in snarky mode, and the FISA handwringers are at it again, bashing Obama in between the rational discourse posts.
July 12, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ex-actly.
July 12, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh. I never realized how important it is to some people to be liked. You were going real good there and then you just freaked out and explained yourself, little Alex. Snark up to a point? Irony for a while? I believe you flip-flopped. So you overestimated your audience. Happens all the time. Why sink to their level?
July 12, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you never know. Because once he wins, a new stage will begin, when he won't need to win over any independents, or moderate Republicans, faith-based zombietown or whoever. In fact, he can screw the independents, moderate Republicans, etc., and their little issues and litmus tests, and use his best Democratic judgment as to what to do to this country.
July 13, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
nor will he have to win over any progressives. or anyone on the left.
the problem with your math is that you assume that obama's 'move' to the right is the cynical one rather than his progressive posturing during the primaries.
July 13, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you imply that Obama is a lost secret disciple of Jesse Helms, then it's useless to argue anything.
July 14, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Realistically, how much higher do you think the InTrade should be? 2 to 1 odds is, politically speaking, an ass-shellacking. With roughly 25% of the population self-defining as rightwing nutjobs, the InTrade numbers put the odds for McCain only 10 points higher.
In a word, that ain't good. For McCain. But I don't think it can tell us anything about Obama "stalling out" because frankly, there's not much room left there for him to move up.
July 11, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much higher should it be? Well, the goal is 100%, right?
;->
July 11, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never thought Newsweek polls were very reliable. I remember in 2000 they used to swing back and forth wildly-more than any other polls. I didn't buy he was up by 15 a month ago and I think he is realistically about 5-6 points ahead of McCain.
July 11, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Serves him right for moving to the middle. He needs to get back to his real self, that's where his strength is.
July 11, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
what, other than wishful thinking, makes you believe that he ISN'T revealing his true self?? what will it take for you to see obama for who he is instead of who you imagine him to be?
July 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
did the poll ask if mcsame a flip flopper??????
?
?
July 11, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or did they ask how many people think McCain is a Muslim?
July 11, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is not a Muslim as far as I know.
July 13, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you all see this: McCain's actions certainly prove the sign-holder's point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/11/mccain-campaign-had-prote_n_112255.html
July 11, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, does this mean we can have that Democrat Chicken Dance we decorated the gym and hired a band for in response to the WSJ story on his fundraising after all?
July 11, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, absolutely. We are always up for a chicken dance in this party.
July 11, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And at intermission, we play circular firing squad.
July 11, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh boy, look at the phrasing of this loaded question;
First, they give it the validation of "some people say." It's not, a straight, "Do you think..."
Second, there's no mention of which issues anyone is talking about, so who knows if FISA or public financing has anything to do with it.
Third, no equivalent question for McCain.
Looks like more narrative-shaping by the media.
July 11, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
July 11, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that some people say it.
July 11, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe they call that push-polling. It's no different than Faux Noise's "journalist" bimbo "apologizing" about the terrorist fist bump comment by saying she was only referring to how it was portrayed in the media. She was telling the truth, except that the ONLY media representative portraying it that way was HER!
July 12, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
i can't take this poll serious because 39 percent think obama went to a Muslim school... this must of been the redneck voters..........
July 11, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
ah but how soon we forget that the majority of voters who re-elected bush believed either a)saddam/iraq were involved in 9/11 or b)we had actually found 'weapons of mass destruction' in iraq or c)the world community overwhelmingly supported the US invasion of iraq.
July 13, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone know how Clinton for President polled?
Denver...Denver....
July 11, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to think Obama supporters are delusional, I implore you to look in a mirror. You are being myopic and not objective.
July 11, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The poll examined registered voters, not likely voters. There is much debate regarding the use of registered voter models v. likely voter models. Likely voter models tend to be more accurate because they only take into account voters who have shown a propensity to vote int he past. Some say the advantage of using registered voters is that it takes into account new voters who may have never voted before. Personally, I believe polls of registered voters are less useful because they are overinclusive - even though we cannot perfectly define a "likely voter", we know that some significant percentage of registered voters are not going to vote.
(2) The poll looks like an outlier. Currently, the RCP averages lies at a 5.8 lead for Barack Obama (this includes the Newsweek poll). Aside from Newsweek's 15 point lead for Obama, no other poll gave him a lead of more than 7 points. When your poll result differs drastically from the rest of the pack, you know that something is probably wrong.
(3) The sample size is small and the margin of error is large. This poll only contained 896 registered voters, with a margin of error of +/- 4 points. This is actually a fairly large margin of error. A + or - 4% margin for error does NOT mean that the real result is actually in that range. Rather, it means that there is a 95% probability that the real result falls in this range (two standard deviations from the mean).
Obviously, you cannot totally discount the poll. However, consider that there are several polls done every week. Over the course of several months, some of the polls taken in the general election are going to fall within the 5% where the results do not fall within the margin of error range. It's impossible to know which polls are outliers, but I think it's a fairly good guess that the Newsweek poll is one of them.
(4) Historically, the Newsweek/Princeton Research polls have fluctuated signficantly and frequently differed from other polls. I took a look at the 2004 Newsweek polls and the result are below. These numbers are taken from Real Clear Politics' archive of 2004 polls. The numbers below are the Newsweek results, along with the results of the poll released before and after the Newsweek poll (these polls are were done by several different pollsters).
July 11, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last LA Times/Bloomberg poll gave Obama a 12 point lead. It will be interesting to see how that trends in the next update. Also, it's curious how RCP has dropped the last Pew poll giving Obama an 8 point lead out of its current group that comprises the average.
July 11, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My problem with RCP is my same problem with Rasmussen - they're GOP shills.
When a poll comes out in a state, or a national poll showing Obama with a big lead, RCP is very slow in posting it.
When a poll like Newsweek's today shows slippage by Obama, they have it posted before the ink is even dry.
the fact that they removed the Pew poll is not surprising because not including it brings down Obama's average, and gives false hopes to their GOP bias.
July 11, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I've noticed that trend as well. They're very slow to change their electoral map as well, even after a couple polls show a state being either a dead head or Obama leading.
July 11, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama went way overboard after the primary in his shift to what is now the post-Bush (post Clinton? McGovern?) "center."
More than his transparent sellout of people who actually care about the 4th Amendment with the FISA cave in, his positions on handguns and Bush's "faith based initiatives" tack away from both mainstream Democratic party thinking and the issues that his campaign emphasized during the primary. Whether he's sincere about the faith crap or no - and I think that, unfortunately, he is - rather than broadening and deepening the "change" theme, his positioning after defeating Clinton quite suddenly triangulated into something very, very conventional.
Perhaps most unfortunate of all, though, is the FISA debacle. Does Obama not understand that all the wiretapping in the world couldn't have prevented 9-11, given the lack of coordination among the various branches of the state and the "Al Qaeda doesn't matter as much as Iraq" neocon paradigm through which information was processed?
July 11, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
...yet as Nulook23 points out below, it's difficult to draw intelligent conclusions about the state of the race from this poll, given Newsweek's wildly fluctuating numbers, changes in political ID among those surveyed between the two polls and the timing of the latest poll vis-a-vis FISA.
July 11, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
hmmmm...Odd, the release of this Newsweek Poll is suspect and convenient considering Barack Obama caught flack of the FISA bill a little over a week ago. Those Independents numbers are lopped-sided, clearly. Furthermore, CNN, Gallup and Rasmussen release its daily tracking poll this morning and according to all three polls Obama has the edge among undecideds and Independents.
In my always suspect of polls considering just a year ago all the national polls were telling us Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee...well, we all know how that turned out!!!
July 11, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
HIC!
July 11, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
i wouldn't take this poll too seriously or any poll right now for that matter. until the media coverage gets fair, and starts calling mccain out on his 60 something flip flops then these polls are useless
McCain lies about voting record for veterans
July 11, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
i would recommend against any holding of breath.
July 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems possible he has damaged his CHANGE brand with his business-as-usual positioning. Let's hope he quits throwing away everything that has brought him this far.
I wonder if he put Mark Penn on his speed dial?
July 11, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It also seems possible that he's strengthened his brand by appealing to independents. But there's not a stitch of evidence either way.
July 11, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from his less impressive receipts of late.
July 11, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which could be interpreted in about fifty different ways -- from small donor exhaustion to summer lull.
July 12, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little back of the napkin math. If you start with 1.5 million donors and subtract 20,000, you know what you've got?
1.5 million donors.
July 12, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has no principle as it concerns the 4th Amendment and the poll shows he lack poliitcal acumen.
Hiks cowardly FISA fold will be the albatross that stangles his camppaign. Wait and watch. Obama joins current dem after dem that demonstrate their stifling unprincipled cowardice.
July 11, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really believe Obama is a very bright guy. His campaign has been run exceptionally well, if he gets off kilter he fixes it, etc.
He is running close to McCain in MO, and other red states. McCain is not even doing well in Arizona! My point is, I believe he knows what he is doing, I am certain that what we analyze and question has been well thought out and reasoned within his immediate circle.
I firmly believe he wants to make it to that White House, and once he does, will become a very strong leader with a world view of how America can thrive in the next decade, and of course, thereafter. I was downright crushed with his FISA vote, I hate hearing anything about religion in regard to politics, I think the death penalty is archaic, etc.
I realized this week though, that only one thing matters. We must have Barack Obama sworn in as the next President of the United States, and all this other tripe is about nothing. We need to donate - time, money and whatever else we can think of to achieve that goal.
Once there, I am confident he will revise and reverse a lot of the civil liberty violations that have been put into place over the last 7+ years. Barack Obama has the potential to be one of the greatest President's this nation has ever witnessed.
On to November. And please donate, even $5 helps out.
July 11, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I give to the ACLU or EFF if I am concerned about protecting civil liberties. I do not give money to Obama or McCain for these reason. I know where they stand. Actions trump hope.
July 11, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. And since becoming the presumptive nominee his actions have quashed my hope.
July 11, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are truly concerned about civil liberties, remember that the courts are our best defense against encroachments on our liberties. Look at each candidates record on civil liberties and the kind of judges that they would appoint. The ACLU is a great organization, but right now, the best defense we have for our civil liberties is working to get Obama elected.
July 11, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I joined the ACLU for the first time in my life this year. But I also give to Obama constantly. The two together are better than the ACLU fighting the Supreme Court over the next 4-8 years should McCain get in there.
July 11, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that an Obama presidency will improve the chances at a more balanced Supreme Court.
July 11, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I agree. Obama has all kinds of hidden knowledge the rest of us don't have and can never hope to have. If we just trust him, everything will turn out all right.
July 12, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's cowardly FISA fold effectively eliminated court review of whether electronic surveillance runs afoul of the 4th Amendment.
July 11, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is that the FISA court does now have to review it. The phone companies were being sued because there wasn't any court approval. I thought that they were now clarifying that requirement and that was part of the reason why the phone companies were so scared that the lawsuits would be successful. The disagreement about the bill and the uproar was almost entirely over the immunity provisions and whether or not they were a deal-breaker. Obama opposed the immunity, but said that there were other good things that the bill did so it wasn't a deal-breaker for him in the end. Again, this just is my understanding of it, and it's not something I've researched in-depth yet. If this is incorrect and anyone has any good unbiased places to get correct in-depth information, I would be happy to take a look.
July 11, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Immunity is just a small piece of the problem. YThe real roblem is on a forward looking basis all telco have to show is that the AG approved a warrantless request. Morever and more importantly, once the executive obtains data on Americans without a warrant and the rtlecos follow the order and the executive never thereafter gets a warrant no fould and nor redress.
Perhaps you should look into the legisaltion and objectively understand it before taking a principled position; otherwise, you are not too dissimilar from the ignorant US Senate that granted immunity for actions that did not know.
July 11, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may think immunity is only a small part of the problem with the bill, but that was the major issue of contention, and the only reason why a filibuster was even a part of the discussion (at least from what I've seen). I gave a reasonable response and invited other information (admitting that I could be missing information), and you responded with absolutely no information in a rant as if you knew everything about this bill. That's the problem with this FISA debate- few people seem to understand what is going on, but no one can admit their limited knowledge; many are just programmed that yes=bad and no=good.
July 12, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have read the bill repeatedly and understanbd. Once you have doe the same we cabn speak. until that time cites from msnbc.com or cnn.com are worthless.
July 12, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
my concern for civil liberties and obama's actual record indicating the sort of judges he would appoint is the REASON i don't support him. even if you take out the immunity, the FISA revamp (which is really only a slight retooling of the protect america act) is an attack on civil liberties. it is a disgrace. obama is no champion of civil liberties. not by a long shot.
July 13, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things that really shows how great and how much of a change 8 years of Obama will be is his stances on making goverment more transparent and open with the use of the internet. Just like earmarks when people in goverment know they are being watched and tracked and can be held accountable then corruption will fall like a rock.
July 11, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how does Obama's cowardly capitulation on FISA translate into more transparency?
Answer"
It detracts from transparency andf contributes to government secrect.
Nice try, but f failure of a proposition.
July 11, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Retry:
And how does Obama's cowardly capitulation on FISA translate into more transparency?
Answer: It detracts from transparency and contributes to government secrecy.
Nice try, but a failure of a proposition
July 11, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things that impresses me about Obama and which distinguishes him from other politicians, is that he is capable of admitting mistakes and learning from the experience.
Regarding the poll indicating a majority think Obama has flip-flopped, a lot of voters still accept what the MSM tells them at face value and the media continues to serve up McCain narrative on a daily basis. I watched Washington Week on PBS tonight and they'd have us believe that the foibles the respective campaigns experienced this week (Obama-Jesse Jackson, McCain-Gramm and EVERYTHING else) were roughly equal.
July 11, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. Maybe Snowbama will awaken from his "centrist" stupor and campaign as a candidate for change by actually BEING the candidate of change once again.
If you're going to argue against "politics as usual" then then you can't practice "politics as usual".
Does Snowbama have the audacity to practice what he used to preach?
July 11, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Snowbama"?
July 11, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
When a candidate states that he will filibuster a bill, and then decides to vote FOR the bill after reaching his short term goal (becoming the presumptive nominee) I consider his statement concerning that bill a snow job. When a candidate talks about running "a different kind of campaign" and says "politics as usual" is anathema to him and then begins practicing "politics as usual" by moving centrist for the general election I consider his proclamations about his earlier campaign a snow job.
So, until Senator Obama resumes his ORIGINAL campaign I will consider the original campaign strategy a snow job to win the primary, and I will continue to refer to him as Snowbama.
July 12, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The latest polling shows Independents moving AWAY from Obama, just as many predicted, based on his changed position of FISA and faith-based initiatives.
His strong and principled position on FISA, which is aligned with American majority on the subject, would have played EXCELLENTLY in the MSM news cycle, butressing his credentials as an agent of change and his independence. Instead, he opened himself to substantiated charges of pandering and flip-flopping and ticked of his base as well.
Who is advising him? Inside information I read suggest that his advisors did not view the FISA vote as a particularly serious matter, believing that it's nothing important to the electorate or the news. This is also the view of many strong Obama supporters here, but it is dead wrong.
Think of the very different conversation we would be having had Obama led principled and strong opposition to the further erosion of Americans' civil rights under new FISA and made one of his excellent, patented speeches on the subject that MSM now has learned to cover, because they are cool. Even if he lost, he would have received grudging respect from his opponents and adoration of this fans. Instead...we have what we have.
July 11, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tester won in Montana in part by running on a strong pro-civil liberties, anti-patriot act agenda. Too bad Obama hasn't as well of yet, but there's still time, although it will be more difficult now.
July 11, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't change his position on faith based initiatives. He has supported them with conditions. My understanding is that the ACLU supports Obama's plan.
July 11, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republiscum are always talking about how "mericans" know how to spend their money better than the government. In this one instance I agree. Let "mericans" decide where their faith-based dollars will go. I don't want my government handing over MY MONEY to hate groups like the church.
July 12, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are we let discouraged regarding FISA, yes. But it is done with, for now. And frankly, most or all of us are political junkies that know/knew FISA was a big deal. Your average voter out there did not know or else did not care.
FISA can be fixed. As Russ Feingold said, it will be. We need Obama in there to give Russ and Chris Dodd the tools to do so.
July 11, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA can be fixed but trust is lost. Name me one occassion where the executive branch gain power vis-a-vis Constitutiuonal rights and thereafter gives them up. If Obama and the rest of the FISA supplicant Senators were around in '73 that would have retroactively forgave Nixon. Simply put, Obama is a coward and not worthy of trust and yet despite this he is a better choice than McCain.
July 11, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The average American maybe didn't know or care, but i doubt that is true of the average voter....or he would not have dropped 14 points during what has been a really bad press week for McCain.
July 13, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you are correct, Obama should fire the stupid shits that advised him on FISA, admit his mistake like a man and get on the right side of the issue now, instead of enjoying his pass to Uncle Tom's telco cabin along with all other Senators and House members that knelled before their telco masters to vote yes for FISA.
July 11, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has said consistently that he will work across the aisle, become a uniter, etc. The FISA bill enjoyed fairly strong bipartisan support--what did you expect him to do?
Anyone hoping that Obama will be an uncompromising liberal is ignoring the Senator's own message.
July 11, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expected him tolead and stand by his promise ti filibuster this bill. He did not and because he did not he is a cowards and com plicit in our road to facsim.
He could have solidified a weak dem leadership in the Senate, instead he got on his knees before his masters, gutted the 4th Amendment and embarassed me for my prior support.
Fuck message, actions are what count.
July 11, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
So aside from the telecom immunity, which provision of the law, exactly, do you find objectionable?
July 11, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
==So aside from the telecom immunity, which provision of the law, exactly, do you find objectionable? ==
Immunity is very bad as it shortcircuited promising civil litigation with good potential for discovery of what the program was and is.
However, much worse is the legalization of the sweeping regional warantless evesdroping barely or non-related to any foreign target that is simply certified as such by a AG. The bill, in an Constitutionally fauly and technically ignorant attempt to "fix" FISA for "new technologies", gives the executive virtually unlimited oppourtunity to increase the scope of the domestic surveilance with some very vague connection to a foreign investigation; this is never brought in front of the judge of any kind for a warrant or probable cause - FISA judges simply look at the overall methodology of the surveilance and read the AG certification. In a practical sense, this is essentially the return of the dreaded "general warrant" of King George's times, a tyrranical practice that the 4th Amendment was specifically written to protect us against - hence insistence of probable cause affirmation in front of an independent judge with a warrant containing list of items to be seized. This eminently important American right is now almost gone, largely thanks to our brave representatives, including Senator Obama.
But worse yet is the pernicious, anti-liberal, authoritarian meme, injected into our legal/political gestalt that the only way to be secure is to be constantly spied upon, in a clearly uncostitutional, invasive, secret manner. I can't describe how I hate that. And I particularly feel betrayed that Obama in his explanation of his reversal used the very Republican language that they have been using to bludgeon us over the head with for years.
For shame!
July 11, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The provision that telcos do not face not liability if they hand over information to the executive branch without a warrant and that no judicial review or any other type of open review is conducted to monitor all of those time the executive requested and received information without a warrant, what ahappended to the infor mation oibtained, who was it obtained on etc...
The executive branch cannot just request personal information on a US citizen absent a warrant issued by a court supported by probable cause. Why is that simple 220 year old concept so difficult to understand?
July 11, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not responsive to the question I asked:
"So aside from the telecom immunity, which provision of the law, exactly, do you find objectionable?
Not what some blog you read somewhere says the law does or means. Tell me which provision of the actual law you find objectionable. Cut and paste the text or give me a cite.
July 12, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you try a different approach, NCSteve? Why don't you cut-and-paste a provision or two from the FISA Amendments Act to show people how exactly they are misinformed?
You're the lawyer, after all, if a not-very-helpful one. Because otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass on a blog too.
July 12, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zing!
July 12, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen fuck, I have read the law and do not feel complelled to provide a tutorial on statutory construction on someone I would hope has read the law. If you have not then shut the fuck up, as you really do not care about the issue.
If you have read FISA and have a different interpretation then why do you take your knowledge of this act and point out where I am wrong. I have made statements base upon my interpretation of the law. You have not provided a god damn interpreation of the law in any sense.
Again, the point is the act fails to provide any mechanism for the executive to turn over any information if obtains without a warrant. Without such a mechanism, the executive branch is free to request the info on anyone from the telcos, the telcos have no liability for turning over the info sans a warrant so long as the AG states it is ok and no one, I mean absolutely no one, has any way to find out who the exeutive obtained info on without a warrant, who it was obtained upon and what was done with it, etc. this is how the law reads.
Now I ask you in all of your uniformed and/or supplicant ass sucking induced stupidty to point out that FISA states otherwise. Rest assured you cannot, but go ahead and try.
July 12, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, his secretary doesn't work weekends. Can he get back to you on that?
July 13, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink