CBS/NYT Poll: Obama Leading Clinton Nationally By Double Digits

See here.

(He's also beating McCain, nationally, 50 to 38%, among registered voters.)

Nearly 60% of all Democrats surveyed say that Obama is in a better position to beat McCain than Clinton. More Democrats think Clinton has made it clear what she'd do as president than Obama, but the margin is small: 65% to 57%. On balance, Democrats seem to like and trust Clinton. They just like and trust Obama more.

McCain's biggest opening: 56% think that Obama needs more seasoning, while 73% acknowledge that McCain is ready to be commander in chief from day 1. Just under half of Americans think Obama is ready to handle a national crisis.

Will the economy matter to independents? 66% of registered voters are very or somewhat confident they think Obama would make the right choices on the economy. But 58% say the same thing about McCain.

On Iraq -- almost an equal number believe that McCain and Obama would both make the right decisions on Iraq.

McCain's trump card is national security, not Iraq. Nearly 50% believe they he'd be a very effective commander in chief.

Incidentally, Obama is getting his margin from the enthusiasm among Democrats and a 10 point lead among independents. McCain has more consolidating of the base to do.

Comments

I really hope Clinton concedes soon. Her shameless attacks on Obama are just giving Republicans freebies.

We must get out of Iraq and there is only one choice for a leader to do that and that is Barack Obama.

Posted by Ann | February 25, 2008 7:00 PM

This is bad news for Democrats.

Posted by TomT | February 25, 2008 7:10 PM

55% of the people polled were Dems or Dem-leaning Independents. 45% were Republicans and Rep-leaning indepedents. Big shock at the results.

Also released today- Rasmussen has McCain up 4 and USA Today/Gallup has McCain up 1.

Posted by Walt | February 25, 2008 7:51 PM

I voted for Obama in the primaries and I can't agree with McCain on Iraq, but I trust him more to keep this country safe.

Posted by Porte | February 25, 2008 8:24 PM

The Democrats can't afford to let Obama and Clinton have at each other for very much longer. It's a recipe for disaster, which the Democrats have tested well over the years. Clearly Obama will be do much better against Grandpa Munster than Clinton, and she would make an excellent Senate Majority Leader. Why can't the Democrats do a win-win instead their usual lose-lose?

Posted by rrk1 | February 25, 2008 8:54 PM

Walt, that's been the direction the country has drifted ever since 2005. Dems have regained a small advantage in party registration and more Indys are leaning that direction as well - understandable when some polls put the president's approval under 20%.

What I notice in the 3 major polls published today (+Rasmussen) is that RV polls give Obama a big lead while LV polls show a tie or small McCain lead (last week it was a small Obama lead though; I guess this is blowback from the NYT article?) Given the exceptional primary turnout and number of new voters this cycle, I'm not sure we should favor LV polls (typically based on past voting history) over RV polls as much as we have in other election cycles.

Posted by John M. | February 25, 2008 9:11 PM

"55% of the people polled were Dems or Dem-leaning Independents. 45% were Republicans and Rep-leaning indepedents. Big shock at the results."

Do you mean to suggest that this is not representative of the population? By the tone it sounds like there should be more Republicans/Rep-leaning independents, but I think a 55-45 split is fair. Personally, I'd say the split is greater nowadays.

Posted by Jeff Morgan | February 25, 2008 9:53 PM

From the NYT's assessment of this poll:

Most recent polls there show a neck-and-neck race in Texas, with Mrs. Clinton having a lead in Ohio; her campaign advisers say that if she prevails next Tuesday the race will begin anew.

Sigh, moving the goalposts much?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 9:57 PM

Clinton alleges she has experience, but really a truly experienced politician would have NEVER UNDERESTIMATED an opponent, and that's what she did with Obama. On the contrary, Obama has shown the one trait one should wish the most in a president: the ability to overcome the biggest of all obstacles, with courage, to accomplish the goal of serving their nation.

Posted by G. | February 25, 2008 10:17 PM

We hope that Obama continues his winning streak.

The 2008 Obama vs Macain contest will potentially be cleaner and more respectful if the Clintons, Rove and Bushes are absent.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Posted by Scott | February 25, 2008 10:54 PM

One thing Obama is a master at, that no presidential candidate of previous generations understood, is the ability to mobilize people through the internet, through encouraging small donations. It is an excellent campaign and Clinton didn't see it coming. People feel uplifted. I think this is a good sign for his presidency--a lot more can get done when people are in better spirits and interested in listening to each other and working together.

Posted by O | February 25, 2008 11:12 PM

Barack Obama Is Change We Can Believe In. He brings together people from all walks of life regardless of age, gender, sexual preference, religion, region, ethnicity, and even political party. The best part is that he doesn't need any negative campaigning or lobyist money to do so! I am a volunteer for Barack Obama and I have been standing for change ever since this election began. The campaign has almost reached its historic goal of ONE MILLION donations, showing the true strength and power of this man to bring about change in how Americans are involved in their nation's future. Please help Barack Obama defeat the big political machine that has been running this country for too long. He's ready from Day One.

Posted by Voter For Barack Obama | February 25, 2008 11:14 PM

I think its high time the Clinton campaign recognize the fact that attacking Obama will draw more voters to him, this has been experimented in SC and the result was unfavorable, also they need to sort out the nomination issue and focus more on Mccain and Nader rather than criticising each other- GO Obama.

Posted by Sunny | February 25, 2008 11:27 PM

Clinton has shown no class. Period.

Accusing Obama of "Rove" tactics, while "oops...maybe a staffer released that picture, but if you're ashamed of it then that's your problem"? Calling him a plagiarist, un-American, un-patriotic, inexperienced...

FACT: All of Obama's "attacks" have been specific and policy-related, while Clinton's have been nothing but underhanded mud-slinging not based at all in fact.

I wish that people would get off their lazy butts and go to the Library of Congress' THOMAS site and see for themselves. I'm so disgusted by Clinton's lies and nasty, passive-aggressive tactics. Not to mention the whole "woman as martyr/victim" thing that keeps popping-up. This is a race for the PRESIDENCY of the US!! I'd like to sit her down with Thatcher, Ghandi, Pelosi, Boxer, and a few other women of real strength, alive or dead. She has no right to be in their company...such manipulation--so gross. SO bad for the Democratic party.

Posted by tastytone | February 25, 2008 11:28 PM

The old wrinkled and overpaid toad in the Clinton
corner...his name is Mark Penn.......is the
Salieri of campaign melody. He is being overwhelmed by the sheer arioso of the Obama
movement. Hillary is now a Valkyrie on the opera
stage, in full amazon armor...belting out
her heroic anger in full voice...as the audience
snickers. Hillary Rodham is the talentless
waif that married Charles Foster Kane in that
unforgettable cine classic, was promoted by her
Clintonesque hubby and all of their vested
political power....and fell on her talentless
face. She is the ultimate empty pantsuit..
now being ridiculed and abandoned by her former
Democrat sycophants. Imagine...Hillary and
Bill facing mortality...we will all sleep
better when the charade is over.

Posted by interferon | February 26, 2008 12:05 AM

"Why can't the Democrats do a win-win instead their usual lose-lose?"

Because the Clintons are a scummy pair of megalomaniaces - that's why. They can't get gone quickly enough to suit me.

Obama might be left-liberal, but he's also a decent guy, and appears to be telling the truth about his ideas and plans. That's why he's picking up the independent vote; I personally know several Ron Paul supporters who, recognizing that Kirchick's purposely-timed hatchet job and Sullivan's deliberately-cooperative fecklessness left Paul with no chance to win, voted for Obama in the primaries. That's why Obama will probably beat McCain handily. And that's why HillBillary has been running the campaign they've been running.

Personally, as a resident of the Memphis TN area, I look forward to the Clintons disappearing the way I looked forward to the Ford family disappearing from political power. Harold Ford Jr's loss in the '06 Senate race pulled a thorn out of TN's paw. Now I'm looking for Hillary's loss to pull a similar thorn out of the nation's paw.

Posted by John | February 26, 2008 12:17 AM

Harold Ickes, Mark Penn, Mandy Grundwald, Maggie
Williams....the ghosts of Christmas Past! The
people are collectively the Scrooges of this
election...and they are rising up to reject the
old, withered, divisive brain trust of Democratic
politics...and their aging messiah, William of
Parse whose protege, Dame Hillary, is hearing
"Bah, humbug" from the electorate. Even Tiny
Tim(Russert) is a skeptic. God bless us, every one!

Posted by SNAFU | February 26, 2008 12:30 AM

Clinton's experience argument is crap, it's been proven.

Assume Hillary is right. Assume Bill is right, and Obama is a 'fairy tale.'

This fairy tale is sweeping right over the most famous female politician in the world and her equally famous and (supposedly) famous Democratic ex-Presidential husband, who just happen to have decades of favors, established networks, cronies, donors, and infrastructure to rely upon to campaign.

And who's winning?

Give it up! Obama has the right stuff, he is beating a senator and a two time President with the strongest brand name in Democratic history. While fending of McCain at the same time.

Gee, I wonder if Obama would be ready on 'day one?' Do you think he is ready for a crisis? Do you think he can handle 'pressure'? Good grief, his composure thus far, given the innumerable debates, the money demands, the constant campaigning, the media appearances, coming from behind, etc - Obama is the comeback kid in a way Bill could never have dreamed of.

My question is, would Hillary be ready on day one? She had decades to prep for this campaign and she still couldn't get it right! Look how many mistakes she's made. How much time does she need to get anything done?

Obama's lack of experience coupled with his walloping of the twin-engined Clinton machine shows he is a political prodigy, defeating a President and the most ambitious candidate out there, someone who had been planning every vote towards this end for at least a decade. How's that for Obama's skill and judgment?

Posted by snaggletooth | February 26, 2008 12:39 AM

Humpty Hillary sat on a wall,
Humpty Hillary had a great fall.

All the Dem horses and MSM men...

Couldn't put liberals together again!

Posted by interferon | February 26, 2008 12:45 AM

Not to put a damper on the Obama party, but Obama is going to have a tough time here in Ohio. He has seven days of Hillary smearing him across the state. Even though it looks like the rest of the country has its nominee, Ohio will not go quietly or easily for Mr. Obama. He has more offices in Ohio than Hillary by 9. He has closed it by 10 points in a week. He needs 15 more to win in my opinion.

http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | February 26, 2008 1:04 AM

Clinton Motorworks press release....
"New model alert! The Hillary Edsel!"
Motor Trend reports lackluster performance...
lack of low-end torque, and an uninspirational
body profile..."We definitely recommend a
1957 Checker Cab in good condition over this
overpriced ride"

Posted by interferon | February 26, 2008 1:10 AM

Re:Bryan

No Obama party here! You Dems will have to
deal with the Democrat eruption when the
Clinton tag team takes on the Obamas in the
looming Texas Death Cage Match! May the better
liberals win! ...or lose.

Posted by SNAFU | February 26, 2008 1:26 AM

Hillary's campaign is getting its butt kicked every which way by Obama, yet somehow we're supposed to be impressed with her 'experience?'
She can't beat a mild-mannered and civilized guy like Obama, yet we're supposed to think that she can go up against the GOP slime machine?

Something is wrong with this picture....

Posted by cajun | February 26, 2008 1:37 AM

Hell, I could do better than the naive foreign policy judgment displayed to date on Iraq. Obama will do just fine as long as he sticks to his judgment, which seems to be based in a much more realistic appraisal of history and human behavior than the comprehensively fucked-up scheme McCain and Clinton have supported for the last 7 years.

Posted by T.K. | February 26, 2008 2:13 AM

I voted Bush / Cheney twice, now I support Hillary. I'm a seriously deranged muthfuckah.

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 6:48 AM

I never knew it was possible to hate someone that I didn't personally know, bravo Hillary!! You psycho bi-poloar fake, oh wait your not bi-polar your just a fake ass. Loving on National Television because you being negative doesn't work nationally, and fake on the campaign trail. You're a liar, and have the nastiest tactics ever!!!! Obama has never judged your tone, or people who believe in your tone... how DARE you judge his with you cynical remarks, basically making all those millions who voted for him duped by voting for him! You never thanked Wisconsin after your defeat, you never Congratulated Obama... your a sore loser! How dare you have Tom Buffenbarger speak as your surrogate... DON'T YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE ELECTED THAT YOU CAN'T WIN WITHOUT OBAMA'S VOTERS, INSULTING US DOESN'T EXACTLY MAKE US WANT TO VOTE FOR YOUR FAKE ASS!

Posted by Jenn | February 26, 2008 6:49 AM

Immigrants in Europe, grow up to be angry and despondent.
Immgrants in America, grow upto to be presidents and billionaires.
Europeans can't comprehend the world is changing and they are being left behind, irrevalent. What a FANTASTIC we live in.
Viva America and well done Sen. Barack Obama.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | February 26, 2008 8:31 AM

I am an admitted Obama supporter who would have entertained a vote for Hillary in order to keep the Republican machine from leading us into a war-torn abyss for another four years.

However, having witnessed firsthand her schizophrenic, disorganized and utterly inept campaign over the last months, I would rather vote for Nader over the Clintons. I cannot trust her word on anything. She touts her experience and ability to balance a budget, yet pretends she has nothing to do with her campaign in financial ruin. She pretends to value all American voters, yet doesn't even thank states after she loses and dismissively retorts that "the big states" will be there for her. She agreed not to campaign in Florida or Michigan and agreed to not count the votes, then does an about face when her campaign is in despair. She believes she could appoint the right people for jobs on her staff, then fires/has key members resign in the most crucial period of her campaign. She slams Obama for claiming she supports NAFTA, when she has stated on Meet the Press, and her own book "It Takes a Village" that it was the right call. She voted for Iraq, and now claims to be a champion of anti-war. She accuses Obama of plagiarism, then deftly lifts Edwards whole closing argument, while trying to play that tired canned line "change you can Xerox." She eloquently states that she is proud to share the stage with Obama at the last debate, then loudly yells "Shame on you" less than three days later. Her campaign cries foul after the release of the "Somalia" photo which forces Obama to again defend himself that he is not a Muslim. Yet she had fired her own staff last year for releasing false information that Obama was indeed Muslim, and cannot deny her own staff were the ones circulating the false rumors yet again.

Congratulations Hillary...you've lost my vote for life.

Posted by Bk | February 26, 2008 8:39 AM

So currently "73% acknowledge that McCain is ready to be commander in chief from day 1", eh? Have they seen this beauty that compare his early statements about Iraq with his later ones? This isn't just him being wrong, this is him studiously ignoring his own earlier words and failing to come to grips with the fact that he was soooooo wrong. Reminds me of Hillary.

Ready from day 1? Well he sure as heck wasn't ready from day one 5 years ago. He was as big a f***-up as Rummy.

And this is really the only issue that John "I bought a copy of Greenspan's book" McCain is running on.

Posted by LFC | February 26, 2008 10:07 AM

So currently "73% acknowledge that McCain is ready to be commander in chief from day 1", eh? Have they seen this beauty that compare his early statements about Iraq with his later ones? This isn't just him being wrong, this is him studiously ignoring his own earlier words and failing to come to grips with the fact that he was soooooo wrong. Reminds me of Hillary.

Ready from day 1? Well he sure as heck wasn't ready from day one 5 years ago. He was as big a f***-up as Rummy.

And this is really the only issue that John "I bought a copy of Greenspan's book" McCain is running on.

Posted by LFC | February 26, 2008 10:08 AM

I just asked the same question at TPM, but isn't Obama beating Hillary against McCain in national polls only because he has strong support in insignificant states?

Posted by bookmarkjedi | February 26, 2008 1:12 PM

I just asked the same question at TPM, but isn't Obama beating Hillary against McCain in national polls only because he has strong support in insignificant states? If you include Puerto Rico and Guam, there's no way Obama could be ahead of Hillary.

Posted by bookmarkjedi | February 26, 2008 1:13 PM

Both Barrack and Billery believe that democracy consists solely of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Posted by Publus | February 26, 2008 2:49 PM

Both Barrack and Billery believe that democracy consists solely of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Posted by Publus | February 26, 2008 2:49 PM

Clinton is groundbreaking woman but Obama is a phony progressive and Nader is the best and here is why:

Over the past few months, we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric about change, hope, courage and experience from Barack Obama and John McCain.

But what about the facts on the ground?

Take a moment to test your civics knowledge in this election year.

Of the following Presidential candidates – Ralph Nader, Barak Obama and John McCain – which one supports a single payer, Canadian style, free choice, Medicare for all health care system?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would cut the huge bloated wasteful military budget?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would reverse U.S. Middle East policy in Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Iran?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would launch an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has consistently supported the Palestinian right to nationhood and peaceful settlement?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama has flip-flopped and has now been bought off by the Israel lobby)

Who has never been in cahoots with the likes of Exelon corp. or Rezko?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has spent his entire life working for the common people like you and me and has written books to advance the rights of consumers?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama wrote his books about himself while Nader was looking out for us.)

Who has been direct about proclaiming that Bush is a war criminal?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which candidate has opposed all wars, every time?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama supports bombing Pakistan and war against Afghanistan)

Some claim that having a racial minority as president would send a positive message to the world. So which candidate would be best suited to address the troubed areas in the world?

Answer: Once again, Ralph Nader, an Arab-American
(Who better to quell the anti-American sentiment in Arab world than an Arab-American)

Can you guess the others?

What's off the table for Ralph?

The empty rhetoric.

The empty gesture.

The empty politics.

What’s on the table?

Taking these issues seriously – all the way to action.

Challenging the corporate domination of our democracy.

Organizing young and old alike, 1,000 in every Congressional district in the country, half a million strong, to take back the country from the corporations.

If Obama or McCain and their parties had seriously and effectively addressed these and other necessities vital to the American people, there would be no need for Ralph Nader to run for President.

Ralph Nader would be happily out of business.

But we’ve waited so very long – and still – not a blip on the political radar screen on any of these issues.

So in this pivotal election year, ask yourself this fundamental question:

Which side are you on?

The corporate criminals, the big banks, Wall Street, the credit card companies, the nuclear power industry, the war profiteers, the agribusiness giants, the health insurance industry, the polluters, the drug companies, the unionbusters, Big Oil, the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans?

Or with people fighting back?

Vote Nader!

Posted by Jimmy | February 26, 2008 3:11 PM

From rrkl: "Clearly Obama will be do much better against Grandpa Munster than Clinton"

There's no need to insult Grandpa Munster.

Posted by Muzzy | February 26, 2008 3:15 PM

Jimmy,
Please get your facts straight.

Obama does not support bombing Pakistan and Afghanistan. He supports bombing Al Quaeda. That's a very big difference. As a matter of fact, the USA continues to support the new government in Afghanistan with our military. So if you would only think for yourself, instead of repeating spin, then you would realize that no American would support bombing Afghanistan when it is an ally and our military/NATO are there.

And the Rezko deal has been hashed and re-hashed on every news channel. There's simply no wrong-doing on Sen. Obama's part to be found.

Also, it is difficult for anybody to choose sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Most of the American people probably would say that they are pro-Israel, since the Christian religion accepts the Old Testament, which is Hebrew. Also, Israel is our one, never-fail ally. But Muslims are pro-Palestine, of course. So, you offend a large group of people, whichever side you choose. But consider that none of the Arab countries want to take in the Palestinian refugees we often hear about: Arabs want Israel to give up land, but they never offered an inch of land for their "own" people.

Posted by jan57 | February 26, 2008 9:52 PM

If you want to see some funny Animated skits with Clinton and Obama go to http://youtube.com/watch?v=W5Kboa7kSjU

Posted by will | February 27, 2008 12:35 PM

Ghana stays beside u Obama,even Black Rasta is making it with a composed REGGAE song

Posted by JOSHUA | March 6, 2008 12:36 PM

I notice the poll is dated FEBRUARY 08. According to NBC polls as of April 28, Clinton leads McCain by 9 points while Obama only has a narrow 2% lead over McCain.

Posted by Cheryl | April 30, 2008 5:50 PM

I notice the poll is dated FEBRUARY 08. According to NBC polls as of April 28, Clinton leads McCain by 9 points while Obama only has a narrow 2% lead over McCain.

Posted by Cheryl | April 30, 2008 5:50 PM

pics asian porn

Posted by asian porn kitty | June 14, 2008 7:19 AM

wbrhczq pvndskj sletrqpz qiwy spuizo oikvdejw nedpxo

Posted by yowivhax zrta | June 17, 2008 7:47 PM