Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Where did Barack Obama's mojo go?

Something's going on. Or some things.

A new CNN/Opinion Research poll out Wednesday shows that despite nine solid days of blanket media coverage from overseas with Barack Obama cheered by adoring throngs of Germans and parlez-vousing with the French, making a three-point shot in the Middle East and standing outside No. 10 Downing Street, the freshman Illinois Democratic presidential nominee to be Senator Barack Obama of Illinois stayed static in the polls despite his well-covered long foreign tripsenator is stuck right where he was in the polls before he left.

No bounce. Not even a roll.

He still leads Republican Sen. John McCain 51% to 44%. But it's the same 51-44 as last time.

A CNN poll average shows an even slimmer 48-45 Obama lead, dangerously close for an experienced opponent who relishes being the underdog.

"Obama has not picked up any ground against McCain on foreign issues," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "And some 52% think McCain would do a better job than Obama on the war in Iraq -- virtually the same number who felt that way in April."

Other polls show the same stubborn one-digit lead holding for the Democratic nominee-to-be with only 96 days left until the general election. Some crucial state polls even show McCain gaining.

Obama seems to have everything going for him. A fresh face. A smooth, cadenced speaking style suited for TV. A message of change at a time when Americans historically favor change, after one party holds the White House for two terms. And after several convictions of GOP legislators.

Obama's got tons of money. An attractive family. Energized followers. A media that's curious about the new guy and tired of ...

... the dogged old POW one. High gas prices, a poor housing market, a two-front war ongoing and a slightly sagging economy, all of which should help political challengers. Not to mention an unpopular incumbent president.

A lead's a lead, but political strategists are puzzled.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy, the last sitting senator to win the presidency, announced his candidacy on Jan. 2. In 10 months he not only won the Democratic nomination in a blaze of freshness, but he beat 47-year-old Richard M. Nixon, who'd been a prominent vice president for eight years and a House member and senator before that.

Obama's had nearly twice that long to campaign. He's barely ahead and should be pulling away. But isn't. How to explain this?

Well, it is summer -- vacation time when millions of Americans are actually having personal fun, enjoying "The Dark Knight" and the bright beach, just before the back-to-school sales. It's already been a long campaign -- 19 months -- for everyone to pay attention all the time. And the interregnum between winning the nominations and getting them is a long, hot one.

Also, the down side to "fresh face" is "little-known face." Obama's still a very new character on the national stage. And though Europeans have shown they can fall in love with an American politician during one speech in a platz, Americans historically take much longer to grow comfortable with a potential national father figure.

For a large number of Americans who don't make up their minds anymore according to their parents' "D" or "R," they let the anecdotal impressions of candidates accumulate over time to create a larger, whole portrait for their gut ballot decision. The TV debates could be crucial.

Despite awfully quick denials by party officials and the smiling summit of Obama and Hillary Clinton in Unity, N.H., is the Democratic Party perhaps more severely fractured than it looks? Is race Barack Obama's chief campaign strategist David Axelrodmore important than many let on?

The Iraq war and Obama's much-touted early opposition to it have seemed to shrink in importance in direct proportion to the dramatic drop in U.S. casualties.

A focus so far has been on McCain's age, but are others maybe wary of Obama's relative youth and public inexperience?

Several strategists of both parties sense that Americans want to vote for Obama, but something is holding them back. Or several somethings, as we suggested up top.

Maybe Obama's flips -- his outspoken opposition to denouncing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright until he did; his promise to take public campaign financing, since broken; his eagerness to debate McCain in town halls, now abandoned; his apparent unwillingness to see progress in the Iraq troop surge, which he opposed and predicted would worsen sectarian violence?

Is there a simmering concern over arrogance by the Ivy League lawyer and mere candidate who so blithely patted the French president on the back for a well-done news conference? Asked the other day if he ever doubted himself, Obama replied smartly, "Never!" And grinned broadly. Sounded more like a 20-year-old than someone about to turn 47 next week. 

Americans bought George W. Bush's message of changing Washington in 2000. But he was a governor coming from Austin, Texas. Americans like governors as chief executives; four of the last five presidents were governors first.

Voters have proved more suspicious of legislators. This year they have no more choice; it'll be only the third time in American history a sitting (or standing) senator has been elected to the White House.

Obama's talking change too. But he's a legislator who's been in Washington three years now, two of them as a member of a Democratic-controlled Congress that was elected in 2006 with great promise but currently holds historically low favorability ratings.

What's Obama done for D.C. change since arriving? What's Obama done for reform back home within the historically monolithic and corrupt Chicago Democratic machine, where some up-and-comers are sent off to Congress for seasoning before advancing to the big time of City Council?

The longer the Obama campaign goes without pulling comfortably ahead of the former fighter pilot who was trained to stay on his opponent's tail, the more worrisome it'll become for chief strategist David Axelrod (see photo) and others behind the closed doors in their Windy City headquarters.

A good reason maybe to consider a jump-start: perhaps advance the announcement of his running mate, get another fresh (or maybe not-so-fresh) face out there to draw news coverage while Obama takes a week of well-deserved vacation like so many other Americans, who could care less about the static polls these days.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Photo credit: Associated Press (above); Chicago Tribune (below).

Comments () | Archives (193)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Well, it's not as if McCain has any good or nice qualities. That Republicans, who have so betrayed the country and stolen it blind, even dare show their face in public is only due to that the media is owned by them. A real, free press would long ago have exposed Republican vice and crime in high places. Instead of wondering what could be 'wrong" with the Democrat.

... and while Europeans have shown they can fall in love with an American politician during one speech in a platz, Americans historically take much longer to grow comfortable with a potential national father-figure.

Please, Europeans have been following this campaign for as long as you have. Like Americans, they come to their decisions by reading about what the candidates say and do. That's why they care enough to head out to the platz in the first place.

And I doubt anyone could say that George Bush or Bill Clinton were perceived as "national father-figures". About the only thing those two shared was their ability to smile and chat and put folks at ease - they're both "beers with the boys" guys.

Obama negatives:
1.) A wife who just by chance resembles Hillary. 2.) Obama claims he has the solutions to all things ,
but can't show anything he has done.
3.) Decided left coast leanings that would warrant
buying stock in an Amish buggy maker.
4.) His arrogance when he talks about what he wants,
not what is good for the majority in the U.S. 5.) His ignoring of the troops in Ramstein, because
it wasn't a photo op
6.) Other than that nothing wrong with the man!!!

Of course another way to look at this poll is to question how a senator who has been in the public eye for nearly 50 years, and therefore is not only part of the establishment, but essentially is the establishment, with all the power, money and connections that goes with it; is trailing, and continues to trail a relatively unknown newcomer who by all accounts shouldn't even have won his own party's nomination.

McCain is right when he says the media focus on Obama. What he doesn't say is that they rarely have anything good to say about him.

Surely the real headline here is "Unknown Senator from Illinois maintains lead in poll against establishment icon, despite recent swiftboating efforts"?

Why is there a picture of Nicholas Cage's little known brother wearing Fonzie's leather jacket? In an article about Obama?

I am surprised your editors even let you get away with this piece. All of your arguments ended with question marks. For one candidate to significantly pull away from the other would have to mean the latter's message doesn't resonate with the masses. That's not the case and has never been. This is a great prize fight with both contenders going toe to toe. Clay vs Liston, the wiley veteran vs the young upstart. We know how that came out and I suspect a similar result. But you insult the voting public's intelligence expecting them to give Obama foreign affairs credit for flying around Europe or inspecting troops in the middle east. What's he done for DC lately? Concern he's an Ivy League lawyer? Is race important? Allow me to ask a question... are you kidding me?

The reason addressed in the article for why people may not be supporting Obama omit an obvious fact: John McCain has done worse on the same issues. So another question we should be asking is why does MCCain not get the same media scrutiny for his flip-flops on Social Security, Iran, taxes, and oil? I am of the belief now that the media is just waiting for to dissect every single word of Obama in order to find fault, while John McCain's own campsing says "John McCain does not speak for the campaign" ???Where is the outcry there? why no drop in support? I think its race, honestly, because every other argument coming from the meia or from the GOP is filled with hypocrisy and cognative dissonance.

It's called oversaturation. The MSM has been obsessing over Obama all year, just like with any product or celebrity there comes a point when the consumer starts rolling their eyes and turning off. Couple that with the Obama ads, videos, songs, etc. all over the net and elsewhere and it just magnifies the effect.

Obama's lack of experience is also a problem. Bush had a few years of executive exp., but was still the least experienced in 2000. Look what we got with that decision. Where is Obama's executive exp.? The presidency is not for amatuers! One would think the last 8 years of Bush incompetence would have taught everyone that.

"Several strategists of both parties sense Americans want to vote for Obama, but something is holding them back. Or several somethings, as we suggested up top."

How dare you accuse a vast swath of America of being racist because they don't think as you do, you filthy nazi, you have no idea what people "sense" so in the future please feel free to report based upon solid journalistic FACTS not your spider sense, alright?

Turnout's the name of the game this year. Obama's already shown he can mobilize unprecedented numbers of Democratic voters in general, most especially young and black voters.

And national polls hardly matter, especially after the fiasco of the 2000 election.

Even if we go into the election with McCain leading by a few points in the polls, my money would still be on Obama to win.

Like you, the rest of America tries to pretend they don't notice Barack is black. To compare him to any other candidate in the past is laughable. To rationalize America's opinion without mentioning he is black is to be willfully ignorant.

I would really like to be able to show our 'colors' and vote for a worthy candidate - who may, as the case may be, be black (could be brown, or white, or yellow). I won't do it because of his, or her color. I will do it because I believe in them, and have confidence they will behave in Washington as a human being. With integrity.

I would like to say, I have voted for change.

I can't do that this time, since the change I would be voting for would also be the change that does not belong in the oval office.

When will Obama finally admit something - anything. Where is the humility of this man. The only other time I have seen a person so stuborn was when I worked with a muslim. Obama says he is not one, and I will have to take his word for it. Seems I have to take his word for a lot of things. Voting for someone I need to take their word is not something I will do.

Very interesting article. BUT, maybe we should ask "What has John MacCain done to change Washington?" What will he DO, if he should by any chance get elected?"

We have not heard anything from the MacCain campaign other than attacks on Obama. I am more interested in what he will DO, rather than how he complains.

When asked by Wolf Blitzer "what will you do on your first day in the White House, if you are elected?" His answer was something along the lines of:
"Call a meeting of my advisers......" Isn't that a bit late?

Polls have been known to be wrong before.

Malcolm sets up an elaborate contrast between JFK and Obama.

"In 1960, John F. Kennedy ... not only won the Democratic nomination in a blaze of freshness, he beat 47-year-old Richard M. Nixon," he writes. Whereas, in contrast, poor Obama's just "barely ahead" of McCain when he "should be pulling away"!

Small detail: JFK, too, was barely ahead of his Republican rival. In fact, he won with the tiniest hairwidth of a margin: 49.72% versus 49.55%.

If that's the standard Malcolm wants to contrast Obama's performance with, I'd say Obama is doing fine.

Meanwhile, if you want to look at a more comprehensive picture of the latest polls, rather than a cherry-picked selection chosen to illustrate the point of a column, I'd recommend the authoritative website, where Prof. Franklin meticulously keeps track of all the latest polls. (And no, I am in no way affiliated with it ;).

It's a geeky site for sure, but refreshingly free of either partisan spin or breathless journalistic chatter. At the moment, the trendline Franklin distills has McCain at the lowest point in this year, and Obama at almost the highest.

Remember, Obama won the hearts and votes of only half the Democrats.Hillary won about 49% and they are still ticked.

Can someone get this writer a tissue?
Seriously, are you that daft?
Why would Americans care if Europeans "love" Obama? They're not the ones voting for someone to lead their Country. Did PM Brown or President of France come to America to campaign?
Obama's message of change... yeah, great message, no direction, just promises change.
Attractive Family? No, his wife looks scary to me.
And yes, Americans are so shallow that we are more interest in the Dark Knight than the elections... what the hell does a summer movie have to do with November Elections?
There are a lot of "some things" holding Americans back from Obama, they're called Socialist tendencies.

Sorry, but did I see correctly or did the reporter sight the US as having a 'slightly sagging' economy, when Barak Obama described the economy as being the grip of an 'emergency' just recently with a 482 billion dollar deficit! I remain unconvinced by leading economists talking up the US economy with their argument that the 'fundamentals' are sound!

The Europeans love for Obama is based strictly on him being anti-war. They don't want to spend their precious welfare money on the military.

McCain has stared death in the eye and spit in its face more than once and he has served his country for almost 50 years.

Obama has done.... what?

Interesting comments. So Michelle Obama resembles Hillary? I just can't see it, although Hillary did once wear her hair in a similar shoulder-length bob. They're both strong women, but that's pretty common. And Muslims are all stubborn. That's a new accusation. I can't think of a single Muslim I know who I'd describe as stubborn, but I'm sure there are some.

Doesn't stubborn mean sticking with your own ways against the advice or opinions of others, and even when you're demonstrably wrong? Sounds more like George Bush.

Isn't it obvious.
Of course excitement has waned.
Many people that were pro-Obama were so because they hated Hillary (either for sexist or Clintonist reasons).
Well they defeated her, and now they stopped caring.
Also, the young energetic people behind Obama are also the same fickle young voters of the past.

One reason for a close race - and its race. The United States is a racist country. It swallows stupid adds because its a country filled with ignorant people. McCain will win even though he's raving nut following a republican clown for president. He apparently is what we deserve.

So what? Firstly it's far too early to put much stock in the polls. Secondly, there are some who will not vote for either candidate no matter what. Your story line teases but nothing more. No substance whatever.

I will vote in November for Obama. Though Obama was not my candidate in the primary, and I'm not so inspired by him as many others appear to be, I can't but notice the Los Angeles Times' almost constant parade of bad news and negative headlines about Obama prominently featured on Google news. It's a constant drumbeat day after day. Despite all the blather from Republican hatchetmen such as Mr. Malcolm about the media's fascination with Obama, there is plenty of negative press about Obama, and plenty of outlets whose purpose is all too clear.
This article is very transparent. It purports to be an article about why Obama isn't further ahead, what's wrong with his Mojo, etc. but is essentially a hatchet job on Obama that puts forward every Republican talking point against Obama that it can possible cram into the space alloted. It also plants a lot of nonsense without foundation trying to suggest that there is some sort of momentum for McCain. "Former fighter pilot who was trained to stay on his opponent's tail." That's a nice little heroic touch to tuck in there, along with "dangerously close for an experienced opponent who relishes being the underdog." This nonsense overlooks the fact that John McCain looks dangerously (for the Republicans) worse as the campaign goes on.

Oh, and let's just slap a nice jumbo picture of Tony Rezko in there without connection or explanation.

Though the leather jacket is a nice touch, it doesn't compare with sprinkling in photos of nubile blond celebrities in an attack ad on a black, male candidate. Perhaps Mr. Malcolm can parlay his experience as Laura Bush's press secretary into a job with Cindy McCain. Then he'd have an even freer hand with his hatchet.

The media are reading way too much into this. I think it's campaign fatigue, pure and simple.

But it should also be noted that once the Ya Ya Sisterhood had been dispensed with, supporters of Senator Obama recognized that a challenge by McCain would pale in comparison, so there is little real sense of urgency.

Axlerod sure does look a lot like Hitler doesnt he??

Andrew, I can't believe no none has called you out on this crap yet! I know you have space to fill, but couldn't you do better than this? Why do you spin things this way? And actually you are wrong: CNN had it at 50-45 the last time. And 51 - 44 this time. So Obama actually gained 2 points. But these snapshots in time can not be used to project the future, as the first rule of polling analysis states.

Obama and Pelosi are on the wrong side of the offshore drilling issue; wrong on the facts and wrong on the politics. Our energy problems need solutions from both sides, conservation and supply. The American people are smart and informed; polls show them in favor of offshore drilling. Unless Obama shows some leadership by bringing the Democratic party around to support drilling, then he will not deserve our votes in November.

hmmm... I have an idea, what about doing his job in the Senate for once, instead of "playing president" on TV???

Firstly, I'm was struck by the resemblance of Axelrod to Adolf Hitler. I've never seen his picture before.

Secondly, Obama has the support of 47% percent of those polled. That doesn't necessarily translate to 47% of the voters. He probably isn't going to poll higher than that. McCain's nummbers won't change either.

Neither candidate is wildly popular with the American voters in spite of the best efforts of the leftist news media in the U.S. to promote Senator Obama.

By the way, I hate the Democrats and everything they stand for.

Nothing has happened to Obama’s MoJo. What has happened the corporate media is trying to keep their stockholders wealthy by creating no news big news. So now the no news is big new. The corporate media is afraid of change, and will try to get John McCain elected so the United States can continue destroying itself.

The corporations in this country who run it by proxy through bribes called campaign contributions, want the United States like Brazil where they arrest politicians for corruption and then let them go,

It's not just his flippant arrogance, his condescending, his wife's toxicity, his astonishing lack of track record, his radical background, his anti-American associations, or his divine right to be our manarch - Americans are finally waking up to the outrageous liberal bias of the mainstream media, and they are literally not buying it. The most wonderful news of the last couple of years has been the layoffs of marxist hacks from newspapers across the continent. Americans are getting the truth from the internet - Nancy Pelosi be damned!

I'm not overly thrilled with either candidate for POTUS. However, I'm less thrilled w/ Obama. Here's why:

Reason 1 and 2: We're at war. And, we're at war. He has absolutely no experience dealing with terrorist extremists that want to kill us all. Unless - it’s his America hating minister or wife.

Reason 3: We're at war with crazy extremists that control our way of life: i.e. OIL.

Reason 4: He has no plan to end the dependency on Middle Eastern oil - other than he does not want Americans to drill for their own -as it might be dirty or something.

Reason 5: He wants to raise my taxes to pay for every gov. run "program" that he's talked about while campaigning. The government is not good at running programs to help people. People help people. Look at your paycheck people! Formula: what I earned minus what I paid in federal taxes, state taxes, social security ='s what's left. Then, fill up your gas tank.

Reason 6: New taxes plus socialized medicine = Socialism. Try to get a specialist in Canada or England if you have cancer or some other serious illness and you will thank you lucky stars you live in America.

europeans who fell in love with him during one speech?

Andrew Malcolm and Don Frederick,whichever of you two who wrote this piece...
you know things like books,newspapers,youtube or even your blog-
people outside your country know about it too..

Well the answer is quite simple to me. McCain is easy to understand. Predictable, simple, not too smart (his geographical knowledge is poor) doesn't use the internet etc etc. Personally, I haven't found the average American too bright either (no offence, there are some incredibly intelligent Americans....just not enough of them) I mean you elected George Bush not once but twice?! And according to recent polls he still has the support of about 30% of the population. 30%!

"...but something is holding them back. Or several somethings, as we suggested up top."

Uh, the ability to think perhaps? How else to explain how anyone could even consider voting GOP after the past 8 years?

Mr Malcom assumes in this article that Obama's popularity should have had a major upswing during his trip abroad. Such an assumption ignores so many obvious social, political, and historical facts that I wonder if the Los Angeles times conducted any editorial review. Oh wait, the LA times forced all of its excellent editors out. Perhaps we are beginning to see the effects. I can't make a before and after judgement because I haven't read enough of the LA times over the last ten years. I am not going to assume, but neither am I going to bother reading the LA times again.

If Mr. Malcolm wanted to engage in journalism, then he could have asked the question whether Obama's popularity should or should not rise given the various forces at play. And if he wanted to engage in insightful journalism then he could have examined the conditions under which such changes in public opinion might take place.

so long and thanks for all the fish.

Can we please have Hillary back now?

Obama still feels like an IKEA solution. Looks so great, smart and economical on the sales floor, but you get him home, and immediately discover that he's missing some important pieces in addition to being comprised of substandard components, and 6 months after buying him, you're totally kicking yourself in the ass and feeling like a sucker for letting yourself get dazzled by something that you knew your gut was telling you was too good to be true in the first place.

Between now and the nominating conventions you will see the low point in public interest and engagement during the entire campaign. We are in the doldrums. The Olymipics start soon and nothing significant will happen to arouse the public until the conventions.

MCain is trying the very line of attack that the Republicans have used successfully since 1980. It consists of slander and lies designed to tear down the opponent and serves to disguise the intellectual bankrupcy of their own failed policies. The public is ready to reject this garbage and Obama is correct in waiting until the convention to engage another gear.

While they may appear to be close in the polls (which I really do not think reflect reality), what we have hear are two race cars running neck and neck. The older car (McNasty) is in his top gear going all out, while the more advanced model (Obama) still has two gears and a lot more fuel in the tank.

How is it, when I start talking about the qualities of the person I will vote for I get called racist (thanks BD)?

This has become a common theme with Obama campagn, anyone who says anything about not voting for Obama is racist.

Makes people wonder, who is being racist? Is it the guy supporting Obama?

People get fooled and distracted by loud mouth of media. Keep in mind, 'change' does not equal 'goodness'. Change can mean both, for the better or for the worse. Hollow, shiny words mean nothing for one with eyes. where do people get the idea that being 'non-white' automatically means get discriminated? just look at Africa in general, and many particular countries with dictator" blacks", and learn a deep lesson. Closer to home, do you often see reformed, better leadership coming from non-whites, especially from those with loudest voice protesting the white governing, then when have power or influence, only making themselves filthy rich, hopelessly corrupted and menacingly oppressive? Black or White or Red or Brown or Yellow, all are human beings, and being a human being, s/he will have greed, selfishness; but there is a subtle difference, a hungry guy will be more than ready to devour more and will not hesitant in crushing anyone dare to be in his/her way; (do yourself a favor, research on non-white politicians, influential figures in last 4 decades and see for yourself.) Having said that, I don't stand for John McCain because he's white, but deep down inside, I have 'something' to tell me that this guy is the lesser of two evils. Again, experience taught me that empty shiny words are just that, they belong to soap opera, not for a true, honest, capable leader. Think about that before it's too late. Media love to boost their rating and people in confusion can be fooled to go with well-oiled deceitful propoganda. President Bush's approval rate is shamefully repeated day in and day out on CNN and the like, but the approval rate of Democrat led Congress is even worse (and lowest in the history of Congress!!!) So one must think if one can, what's wrong with media, and with all its deliberate help, what's wrong with Obama tephlon impact on voters' mind?

From a non-white observer, Daniel P.

Perhaps people are realizing that he's a three-year senator. Not that I personally think McCain is the better candidate. I think that at the end of the day, if you're more liberal you'll prefer with Obama; if you're more conservative you'll prefer McCain. The dead heat comes from the swing voters who do take his less than glorious attributes seriously, like his signature "Obama Sidestep" and relative inexperience. And not to mention question the amount of change behind all his speeches. The problem is this: when a candidate is placed so high on a pedestal, those that are neither with him nor against him are going to question whether is deserving of such a placement.

Reasons? Ample:

No experience
Uses "I" too much, I don't care what he wants it's about what "we" need
The anybody but Bush syndrome, that's fine, but there is no meat there
Race (come on, be honest)
Simple statements that mean nothing
Presumption that he has already been elected, sorry pal, you've not even been chosen by convention yet
Does not reach older folks and the younger folks who turned out in the primary mostly don't have a clue, just listen to their statements as to why they want him in
Does not reach blue collar America
Does not reach most women
Can't even decide on a VP, comon, the choice is obvious
Something else people are beginning to see, he is the darling of the press and if he wins, the press will have elected him. Think not? Count up the hours of coverage, the fawning, and the compare the time given to McCain.
Lets be honest, he can count on the Black vote because--He's black. Sorry, it's the truth.
Lots of questions about his shady friends
A trip overseas acting like a president? Sorry folks, it didn't play and in fact displayed his arrogance and inexperience, and guess what? We noticed.

I'm a Democrat and will tell you my vote on Obama. No! I've had enough arrogance, inexperience, stpidity and lies from Bush. We don't need more of he same.

Lifelong liberal latte drinking artist environmentalist from San Francisco here....Couldn't give a rats behind that he's black - he's also white though no one ever seems to bring that up. WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HIM. All I know about him is that he can run a good campaign...but CAN HE GOVERN??? ZERO proof of that. His EGO, along with his 18 year old fan club, took my children's future to Vegas and gambled away what should have been a no brainer for the Democrats this year, turning it into a probable loss. After all the GOP has done over the past 8 years, this should NOT have been a toe to toe close call! Instead of doing what was best for the country and my kids future....looking at the substantial lead we started out with when Hillary was running...instead of saying "We're ahead now, how can I help us win?".....He inserted his HUGE EGO (I'm too smart and talented to waste my time and talent doing something so mundane as actually doing my JOB as a SENATOR....) and now we are all sitting on the edge of another 4-8 years of disaster. PURE ARROGANCE. THANKS BARACK! I'll tell my kids how great everyone thought your speeches were when McBush is at the helm and we sink into unending war and another Depression.

Could it be ANY more simple?

FULLY 90% of Obama's support was coming from the GOP, in an effort to kill the only candidate that ever had any real chance of winning, Hillary Clinton. ALL polls prior to Obama entering the race showed her decimating any possible GOP candidate with a mere 51% of the vote of all women; at the time she had more than 60%.

What you are seeing now is the true colors of Obama's "support" from the GOP and "independents"; they will vote McCain and GOP as they were going to do all along.

Obama will not win; he could never win. All just spin from a GOP-owned mainstream media designed to con the gullible into believing he was ahead and could win.

The only way to defeat McCain is to have a superdelegate revolution at the convention and overturn Obama's coronation.

What Mojo? Oh, you must mean Obama's ablity to make women in their 20s faint on cue. His one great talent. Yes, where did it go? Perhaps he left it behind in Germany.

NObama has simply hit his ceiling. He's all talk, all PR, saying he's all things to everybody; he's Slick Willie Jr., minus the sexual assaults.

The article nails it on the head - in a year when a Democrat should be running away with the election, what do the young and black (ahem) "knowledgeable" voters do? They pick THE most inexperienced, THE most Liberal, and the person with THE most ties to known Racists in the race.

Did I say "knowledgeable", I meant "idiots". Way to earn that Jackass logo!

I am for Obama, but this is the most biased article I have ever read from a real news website.

Bias of media why not mention the following polls?

Obama 41% McCain 40% July 23rd
Obama 48% McCain 46% July 29th

See you have to be careful the Media is manipulating who they ask. So one of the large media polls turned out to poll almost 2/3 democrates and showed a large lead for Obama. But they did not disclose the bias in any of the aritcles.

So now the public should not even believe the polls because of manipulation.

For reference the above polls were from Fox News and Rasmussen. The Fox News polls always publish the method and percentage of Republicans and Democrates. Good for them maybe they are fair and balanced. Would the rest of the media follow with being open about how the polls were done!

1 2 3 4 | »


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: