How is this even possible?

His trip was on the news 24/7. Everyone poured champaigne in their lattes when Maliki backed him on the withdrawal dates.

Is this poll old maybe?

It depends on how the polls were conducted. As I said in the other thread if there was two seperate questions that looked something like this -

Ranking from 1-10 (with one not comfortable and 10 being absolutely comfortable) where would you rank your comfort level of John McCain on National Security Issues

Ranking from 1-10 (with one not comfortable and 10 being absolutely comfortable) where would you rank your comfort level of Barack Obama on National Security Issues

Now if I rank McCain a six and Obama a five, sure it means I'm more comfortable on National Security Issues with McCain, but not by much.

Similarly what if pre-trip McCain was ranked six and Obama was a three, while he narrowed the gap on McCain in my mind the "Who are you more comfortable with " either/or question of the certain polls would still have be marking off McCain.

So the breakdowns are not nearly as important as the big "Who would you vote for" question, because in such a question you are weighing the pros and cons of each candidate as a whole and making your final decision - taking into consideration Iraq, Afghanistan, national security, terrorism, economy, energy, judgment, leadership, vision, social issues etc.

McCain is right now hiding behind his attack ads, at some point- no later than the debates- he'll find himself naked.

Also, any thing less than 10 points lead on national security- the area of percieved "strength" McSham is good news for Obama. This election is mostly now pinning on Economy.

However, we don't know if we're in for another Bush admin's terror season.

I'd put significant blame back on the party. How can Obama present a clear alternative on foreign policy when the party has done nothing but enable the current policy? If it were me, I'd be running hard against the cost of the, the war profiteering, the debt we've foisted on our children, the lies and outright forgeries that got us into the war, but heck, the Democrats funded every cent of it.

And if Obama chooses some miserable blue dog hawk like Bayh as VP he deserves to lose the election on national security because I'll be darned if I have a clue how he differs from Bush. Yes, I know he's smarter, but intelligence without the courage to use it ain't worth a darn.

Sadly, the GOP brand is still strong in the national security issue and McCain's military background is viewed in a positive manner. People still think (sadly) that Republicans are tough enough and democrats are weak for that aspect.

It's not just about Obama himself, but it's about the belief (overrated and incorrect I think) that a military man is better prepared to be commander in chief and the way the armed forces are seen in american society.

Obviously, times are changed and so the role of the U.S. military must be reviewed to the situation of today's world. Many people still have a WWII/Cold War mentality that is us against them: U.S.A. vs. whatever country that could be a possible threat (Russia, China, Iran, etc.)

This election must be also a change on the way the people view the military and the commander in chief role (specially after the Iraq fiasco) and a debate is essential on this theme. Obama can offer a different approach to the way the armed forces are used and sometimes abused.

"It's the economy, stupid" is my answer to that.

The issue isn't who has the advantage in terms of Iraq and/or national security but rather does Obama pass a certain threshold to be commander-in-chief.

The trip helped but I would say subconsciously. People saw that Obama CAN handle himself on the world stage. What will REALLY make a difference in that department is the debates. If people see Obama as credible than he will pass that threshold eventhough he may not beat Mcain in the Iraq War/national security department in polls.

The VERY GOOD news in this poll is that Obama is seen as more likeable. People do NOT vote for presidents in the end that they don't like.

People liked Reagan over Carter, Bill Clinton over both George H.W. Bush/Bob Dole, Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry.

Always remember that people are MORE likely to vote FOR a candidate than to vote AGAINST the other candidate.

That's why many McCain previous advisers are very concerned right now with this "angry McCain". He just doesn't come across as likeable. In 2000 McCain was much more likeable as the "happy warrior". Now he looks like Mr. Mcgrumpy.

Barry for Chancellor of the German Democratic Republic or better yet, the old Deutschland Democratic Republic (DDR). Barry would be at home in the DDR with their socialist/Marxist philosophy. Also, the DDR had a good immigration policy...shoot to kill.

Inflate your tires, Barry knows both Domestic and foreign policy, like where Berlin is located.

McCain/Clinton 2008!

The problem is the media putting to much focus on Obama, and its not positive focus, its always put in a way of "do we really know Barack Obama?", "is Obama ready to lead?", "can Obama connect with the American people?"

The media never parses the focus to McCain like this.

I wonder what will be happen once the Olympics start and Obama is on vacation for a week.

My understanding that Hillary will be campaigning for Obama in some battleground states so the focus will be about the Clintons vs Obama.

The reality is that Obama isn't going to break through this narrative until after the conventions and the first debate. I think that will be critical and may be the tipping point for either Obama or McCain.

Actually it's pretty simple when you think about it. I'm not sure where I saw it, but someone predicted this effect, might have been Yglesias. It goes like this:

Say a certain number, let's say 10% of voters find national security/foreign policy to be their top issue. Assume THEY go for McCain 60-40%. That means McCain would lead Obama by 6%-4%, or 2 points among the over all electorate (all things being equal).

After the trip let's say 30% of voters now find national security/foreign policy to be their top issue (because of the publicity) and Obama has closed the gap to 55-45% on this issue. McCain now leads Obama on the issue by 16.5-13.5% or 3 points among the over all electorate despite halving his national security/foreign policy deficit in HALF.

Wallah, Obama has closed his margin on national security and also lost his lead at the same time.