Obama expands lead over McCain, the ‘age issue’ lingers

The new Washington Post/ABC News poll is chock full of interesting tidbits to mull over. Most notably, in light of the past week’s events in the Democratic presidential race, it appears that Barack Obama is largely where he wants to be.

As the Democratic race nears the end of its primary season, with the next round of voting happening today in West Virginia, this new national poll shows Obama with a 12-point advantage over Clinton as the preferred choice for the nomination.

More than six in 10 Democrats now say Obama is the one with the better shot at winning in November. Although Clinton retains her wide advantage as the more experienced candidate, for the first time Obama has the edge on being considered the stronger leader.

Just as importantly, about a month ago, when Jeremiah Wright was dominating the news, Hillary Clinton performed better than Obama in several general-election match-ups against John McCain. It appears that Obama now has a slight advantage on this point — the Post/ABC poll shows Obama leading McCain by seven (51% to 44%), while Clinton leads McCain by three (49% to 46%). This edge is even more striking among independents, who prefer Obama to McCain (51% to 42%), but prefer McCain to Clinton (49% to 46%).

In terms of the issues, Obama enjoys double-digit advantages over McCain on healthcare, gas prices, and the economy; while McCain has a 21-point lead in combating terrorism. On personal attributes, Obama excels in bringing needed change, temperament, empathy, and clarity of vision. McCain fares better on experience and knowledge of world affairs. They’re about tied on leadership and “personal and ethical standards.”

As for the septuagenarian issue, which I’ve been harping on for weeks, the polling data points to this remaining a key hurdle for McCain: “Only three in 10 said they were ‘entirely comfortable’ with the prospect of a 72-year-old new president, about half as many as those who said they would be similarly comfortable with an African American or female president.”

I don’t doubt that at least some of this is skewed by those who don’t want to admit to racism or misogyny, but I emphasize this (again) because it continues to look like an issue that few are talking about, but which may make a difference.

As for the general landscape, to say Republicans are at a disadvantage this year is quite an understatement.
Read more

27 comments

Former Rep. Bob Barr, as Dana Milbank reminds us, developed a colorful reputation during his four-term tenure in the House.

As a Republican candidate for the House in 1994, he rose to national attention when reports alleged that he had licked whipped cream off the breasts of two women at a charity event.

As a congressman from Georgia, the thrice-married Barr returned attention to the whipped-cream episode when, speaking in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, he argued that “the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society.”

As one of the managers of Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Barr gained enough prominence to attempt a run for the Senate in 2002. But that effort fell apart at about the time Barr accidentally fired a .38-caliber pistol through a glass door at a fundraising reception.

Ironically, Barr became more principled and serious after serving in Congress. After departing Capitol Hill, Barr became disillusioned with what had become of his Republican Party. He was nearly apoplectic about Bush’s conduct in the NSA warrantless search scandal, suggesting the president “deliberately order[ed] that federal law be violated,” and “ignored” the Constitution. Shortly thereafter, Barr agreed to introduce Al Gore at an event in which Gore blasted the president’s “excessive power grabs.” He was also highly critical of the Bush administration in the prosecutor purge scandal.

About a year ago, Barr left the GOP altogether and began talking to the Libertarian Party, calling for a “multidecade effort” to build a movement to make the party nationally competitive. He added that many “real conservatives” have become disheartened with Republicans. “They are eager for a philosophical home,” Barr said. “There are enough of them out there that a significant number can be weaned away” from the GOP.

Is Barr right? His presidential campaign, announced formally yesterday in DC, should be an interesting test.
Read more

27 comments

Barack Obama sat down with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg to discuss U.S. policy towards Israel, and for the first 95% of the interview, Obama offered a solid, uncontroversial position, which included effusive praise for the Jewish state.

After describing some of the first times he thought about Zionism, Obama said “the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience.”

He talked about how “the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land.”

He assailed Hamas as a terrorist organization and said the United States “should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.”

When the topic turned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama said, “Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security.” When asked if Israel besmirches the United States’ reputation, Obama said “No, no, no.”

So far, so good. Obama then added, “[W]hat I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that … I want to solve the problem.”

Describing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a source of instability in the region, and a dispute in need of a resolution, hardly seems controversial.

So, House Republican leaders changed Obama’s words to make him say what they wanted to hear. By any reasonable definition of the word, they lied.
Read more

29 comments

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* A devastating 7.9-magnitude earthquake in China: “Thousands of people have been killed by Monday’s powerful earthquake in just one affected region of central China, its government said, with the toll expected to keep rising as bodies are retrieved from schools, homes and factories. The Chinese government said at least 8,600 people were dead, but that the death toll was sure to rise as authorities began to reach some of the worst-hit areas.” Reaching those areas is proving difficult — the quake severely damaged roads in the area around the epicenter.

* Progress remains slow in Burma: “Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticized Myanmar’s military junta Monday for what he called its ‘unacceptably slow response’ to helping cyclone victims. Three of the U.N. Security Council’s five veto-wielding members — France, Britain and the United States — remain interested in a possible resolution that could require Myanmar’s government open its doors to more aid, several council diplomats said.” Diplomats told the AP discussions were ongoing this afternoon.

* Harry Reid is working hard to resolve the impasse over the FEC. In the latest move, the Senate Majority Leader gave Bush a choice: either drop Hans von Spakovsky or tell Senate Republicans to let lawmakers vote against him.

* Must-read piece from the LAT: “The number of Americans being secretly wiretapped or having their financial and other records reviewed by the government has continued to increase as officials aggressively use powers approved after the Sept. 11 attacks. But the number of terrorism prosecutions ending up in court — one measure of the effectiveness of such sleuthing — has continued to decline, in some cases precipitously. The trends, visible in new government data and a private analysis of Justice Department records, are worrisome to civil liberties groups and some legal scholars. They say it is further evidence that the government has compromised the privacy rights of ordinary citizens without much to show for it.”

* Quote of the Day: “If a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged, I guess that means a liberal is a conservative who’s been denied insurance because of a congenital condition.”

* 82% of Americans don’t agree on much, but according to a new ABC News poll, “Eighty-two percent of Americans now say the country’s seriously off on the wrong track, up 10 points in the last year to a point from its record high in polls since 1973.”
Read more

54 comments

I’ve been obsessing over John McCain’s incoherent opposition to a modernized GI Bill for veterans, so I was especially pleased to see Barack Obama, at a campaign stop in West Virginia, help elevate the issue and hammer McCain for his misguided position. From the speech:

“When our troops go into battle, they serve no faction or party; they represent no race or region. They are simply Americans. They serve and fight and bleed together out of loyalty not just to a place on a map or a certain kind of people, but to a set of ideals that we have been striving for since the first shots rang out at Lexington and Concord - the idea that America could be governed not by men, but by laws; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and write what want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.

“[W]hen our loved ones do come home, it is time for the United States of America to offer this generation of returning heroes the same thanks we offered that earlier, Greatest Generation - by giving every veteran the same opportunity that my grandfather had under the GI Bill.

“There is no reason we shouldn’t pass the 21st Century GI Bill that is being debated in Congress right now. It was introduced by my friend Senator Jim Webb, a Marine who served as Navy Secretary under President Ronald Reagan. His plan has widespread support from Republicans and Democrats. It would provide every returning veteran with a real chance to afford a college education, and it would not harm retention.

“I have great respect for John McCain’s service to this country and I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve. But he is one of the few Senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it’s too generous. I couldn’t disagree more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American Dream.”

Nicely done. McCain has gotten a free ride on this, and Obama’s criticism should elevate the matter considerably.

The McCain campaign quickly responded: “It is absurd for Barack Obama to question John McCain’s commitment to America’s veterans, when Obama himself voted against funding our nation’s veterans, and troops in the field during a time of war. Voters need a leader with uncompromising judgment, and will reject Barack Obama’s decision to vote against funding our troops in the field, after he said it would be irresponsible to do so.”

Good. This is what campaigns are all about.
Read more

29 comments

Shortly after promising not to engage in these kinds of attacks, John McCain went after Barack Obama a few weeks ago over an ostensible “endorsement” from a Hamas spokesperson. It was a cheap and ridiculous move — especially given the fact that McCain and Obama have the same position on Hamas — which Time’s Joe Klein accurately described as “gutter crap.”

It was therefore not surprising at all to see Joe Lieberman repeat and legitimize the bogus line yesterday on CNN.

Lieberman began by complaining about Obama’s “lost his bearings” comment, insisting, “[T]o say he lost his bearings suggests something more fundamental and personal.” (It really wasn’t.)

But when Wolf Blitzer noted that McCain and Obama have the same position, Lieberman conceded that this was true and acknowledged that Obama “clearly doesn’t support any of the values and goals of Hamas.”

But then he had to add: “But the fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, ‘Why?’ And it suggests the difference between these two candidates.”

I’ve come to expect very little from Lieberman, especially in his new-found role as a Republican surrogate, but this is just wildly unnecessary and more than a little inappropriate.
Read more

42 comments

Two weeks ago, an NBC/WSJ poll found an interesting trend in American public opinion: after hearing about Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons in a constant loop for months, voters were more concerned with John McCain’s association with Bush than Obama’s association with his former pastor. (Specifically, 43% of respondents were worried about McCain and Bush; 32% about Obama and Wright.)

Today, a new Gallup poll points to a similar public sentiment.

George W. Bush may do as much damage to John McCain’s chances of being elected as Jeremiah Wright does to Barack Obama’s, according to results of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

The May 1-3 poll finds 38% of likely voters saying McCain’s association with Bush makes them less likely to vote for McCain, while 33% say Obama’s association with Wright diminishes their likelihood of voting for Obama.

A strong majority of Americans (64%), including a near majority of Republicans (47%) said the Wright issue will not have any effect on their vote.

I’m a little torn as to whether this is good news for the likely Democratic nominee or not.

On the one hand, I’m delighted Americans are more concerned about McCain and Bush than Obama and Wright. That’s how it should be. On the other hand, shouldn’t the margin be considerably more dramatic than 38%-33%?
Read more

18 comments

When pressed on his differences with George W. Bush, John McCain now relies on a three-prong answer: McCain is more committed to cutting spending than Bush has been, McCain disapproved of the Rumsfeld strategy, and McCain cares more about the environment.

All three struggle under scrutiny. McCain talks about spending, but comes up short when pushed for specifics. He criticizes Rumsfeld years later, but while Rumsfeld was failing, McCain was urging Americans to “stay the course.”

And then there’s environmental policy, which McCain is emphasizing heavily this week as a way of making him appear more moderate, helping him with independents, and distancing himself from the far-right wing of his own party.

One of the presidential candidates is off to the Pacific Northwest today to talk up a big campaign pledge to combat climate change — and it’s a Republican.

John McCain is set to outline his proposal for offsetting global warming in a major address in Portland, Ore., this afternoon. His campaign says he’ll “propose a domestic cap-and-trade system that will mobilize market forces to develop and commercialize alternatives to carbon-based fuels” — a split from the Bush administration, which has largely ignored the topic. […]

Senator McCain also has a new environmental ad now playing in Oregon to coincide with his global warming speech. “One extreme thinks high taxes and crippling regulation is the solution; another denies the problem even exists,” an announcer says. “There’s a better way.”

Mr. McCain’s decision to make climate change a key part of his campaign is “evidence of his intention to battle Mr. Obama for independent voters, a group the two men have laid claim to,” write Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times.

It all sounds very nice, just so long as you don’t look past the surface.
Read more

9 comments

A couple of months ago, Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican and former chairman of the NRCC, told the WaPo, “The House Republican brand is so bad right now that if it were a dog food, they’d take it off the shelf.”

GOP leaders probably didn’t care for the comparison, but they’ve been worried about the Republican “brand” for quite a while. Indeed, way back in October, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) quietly launched a re-branding initiative, working to with corporate advertising and rebranding experts to help Republicans turn things around.

Seven months later, we’re finally going to see what these guys have come up with. Roll Call reported today:

After months working behind the scenes, House Republican leaders this week will finally start rolling out their rebranding effort aimed at rallying the party around a comprehensive policy and message agenda.

Titled “Reasons to Believe,” the plan is meant to provide House Republicans with a sales pitch to voters by focusing on four issue areas: the economy, energy, health care and security.

Leaders will present the package Wednesday at the weekly meeting of the Republican Conference.

According to a memo that will circulate to House Republicans today (and which Boehner’s office seemed willing to leak), the GOP caucus will get a relatively straightforward message: “Washington is broken, the American people want it fixed, and Democrats in Washington have proven unable or unwilling to get the job done. Republicans will. Americans have seen first-hand the change Democrats are making, and it is moving America in the wrong direction. To the American people, we say that Republicans will deliver ‘the change you deserve.’”

The closer one looks at the details, the more one wonders whether those corporate advertising and rebranding experts were overpaid.
Read more

48 comments

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* A few more superdelegates fell off the fence over the last 48 hours or so. If my count is right (and I may have missed one or two), Barack Obama picked up four (Maine’s Tom Allen, Arizona’s Harry Mitchell, California’s Crystal Strait, and Virginia’s Joe Johnson), and Hillary Clinton has picked up one (Texas’ Ciro Rodriguez).

* Clinton officials acknowledged yesterday that the campaign is $20 million in debt.

* On a related note, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said yesterday that the senator is “willing” to make another personal loan to her campaign.

* Speaking of finances, chief Obama strategist David Axelrod noted yesterday that Obama might be willing to help Clinton retire some debt, but he’s not going to write her a check. “I don’t think even under any scenario … that we were going to transfer money from the Obama campaign to the Clinton campaign. We obviously need the resources we have. We have a great task ahead of us.” There was, Axelrod said, “a misunderstanding out there about that.”

* Clinton held a conference call on Saturday with her superdelegate supporters, urging them to hang in there. “I know this is not easy,” Clinton said. She added, “We will close ranks and I know we will be totally unified going forward.”

* Obama is going to lose by a whole lot tomorrow in West Virginia. A new Suffolk University poll has Clinton ahead by better than a two-to-one margin, 60% to 24%.
Read more

47 comments

I think it was a couple of weeks ago when McCain aide Mark McKinnon, who said he’d step aside if Obama won the Democratic nomination, suggested the two presidential candidates are respectful and high-minded enough that they could travel across the country, holding un-moderated debates. As I understood it, McKinnon wasn’t making a serious proposal, so much as he was making a point about why he likes Obama and McCain.

Nevertheless, it seems like the debate idea is being bandied about quite a bit lately.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he’d be willing to campaign jointly with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and debate him in town-hall style formats.

“I think that’s a great idea,” Obama, 46, told reporters in Bend, Oregon, today as he campaigned ahead of the state’s May 20 primary. “Obviously we would have to think through the logistics on that, but to the extent that should I, should I be the nominee, if I have the opportunity to debate substantive issues before the voters with John McCain, that’s something that I am going to welcome.”

Obama, an Illinois senator, was responding to a question citing reports that McCain’s advisers have suggested the two should campaign together this summer, debating at town hall meetings without a moderator.

The NYT had an item about this over the weekend, as well.

At first blush, this sounds like fun, doesn’t it? When one candidate visits an area and hosts a town-hall meeting, voters get to hear one side of the debate. If both candidates are there together, voters would conceivably be in a position to learn a lot more.

But even putting aside potential logistical issues, there are some real downsides to the idea, especially as far as the Obama campaign is concerned.
Read more

57 comments

What’s the top message priority for Democrats hoping to win this year’s presidential election? When it comes to defining John McCain, it’s pretty obvious: he’d offer more of the same. On the key issues, McCain and George W. Bush share a script.

McCain is aware of the dangers here — no one wants to be closely associated with the most unpopular president since the dawn of modern polling, and no one wants to run on a “stay the course” platform when four out of five Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.

With that in mind, it’s always encouraging when some leading Republicans seem anxious to make it easier for Democrats to hammer their message home. Take Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the second highest-ranking Republican in the House.

As a rule, Republicans are supposed to disagree with the Democrats’ central criticism of the GOP presidential candidate. But if Blunt & Co. want to tell national television audiences that we’re right, I couldn’t be more pleased.

As Faiz explained very well:

McCain is promising more of Bush’s economic agenda — unaffordable massive tax cuts for the rich that offer no help for the average family.

The McCain economic agenda includes: $1.7 trillion tax cut for corporations, $300 billion a year in tax cuts that aren’t paid for, and a plan that delivers 58 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers and only 9 percent to the bottom 80 percent.

All of this sounds familiar, of course, because it’s the same approach embraced by the Bush gang for the last eight years. McCain isn’t in a position to deny his support for Bush’s economic policies, and apparently, neither are his campaign surrogates in the Senate.
Read more

16 comments