A new CNN/WMUR poll shows Obama has a 10 point lead over Clinton. (Photo Credit: AP)
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) - MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) - Two days before New Hampshire's Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama has opened a double-digit lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in that state, a new CNN-WMUR poll found Sunday.
Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois who won last week's Iowa caucuses, led the New York senator and former first lady 39 percent to 29 percent in a poll conducted Saturday and Sunday - a sharp change from a poll out Saturday that showed the Democratic front-runners tied at 33 percent.
Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is at 16 percent in the new survey, down four points from Saturday. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is in fourth place, with the support of 7 percent of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio at 2 percent.
Full poll results [PDF]
Related video: New poll sends shockwaves
Related video: Stakes high in New Hampshire
– CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
Hilliary Clinton is running on this idea of experience in Washington. This as Obama has stated numerous times means it will lead to more of what we have now. Clinton says her time in the White House will give her what it takes. First of all, it was BILL Clinton who was President in the 90s, not Hilliary. Her healthcare proposal fell apart and could not pass a DEMOCRATIC controlled Congress. If elected she will end up just like Bush and Cheney as a Washington politician being controlled by special interests. Lastly, she cannot be elected because she is despised by half the country. Sixty percent of her own party did not vote for her in Iowa (the anti-Hilliary vote). The GOP are going to nominate John McCain and he will kill her with swing voters and cross over Dems. Do the smart thing NH and vote for Sen. Barack Obama. You have the chance to give Obama his chance for the White House and for change. A win in New Hampshire equals a win in November 2008!
What gives me the greatest pause about Obama is that the same things said for why they like him, i.e. He will change America, He Gives us All Hope, He's Not Corrupt, He's for Change [etc.], are EXACTLY the same things everyone said about GEORGE W. BUSH in 2000.
While I believe Obama to be extraordinarily more capable than George W. Bush was, he has NOT produced any concrete plans or proposals of substance for anything. Democrats can nominate him, but that's a big Magic 8-ball-type risk to take that he can talk substance, which he will need in the general election (perhaps against a John McCain who would love to campaign against an Ivy League grad with no foreign policy experience), to go along with his happy-feely-good messages so far.
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton imo has been a horrible campaigner and I do not trust her to win a General Election either.
John Edwards, has experience fulfilling his full term in the Senate before being the Veep candidate with Kerry, and more importantly for myself, he really did live the American Dream. His father was a textile mill worker & John Edwards was the 1st person in his family to go to college. Not denigrating any other candidates' personal achievements, that story is going to win Southern States. Obama may indeed be the embodiment of hope that everyone wants, but just as the Republicans who voted for George W. Bush b/c he personified their audacity for hope found, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see a President Obama that could not deliver on the hollow rhetorical promises given during the campaign.
Obama is leading in Georgia and the rest of the states you mentioned have not been polled recently or in some cases not at all. I only state Georgia because I am a Georgia resident and I saw the poll in our paper.
A note on Clinton and Obama:
35 years of experience? So when she was 25 she was fighting the establishment? Not likely. She has only had seven years in elected office. Obama has been in office for ten years and before then he was fighting the establishment as a civil rights lawyer and community organizer. A quick note is that Obama did graduate top of his class at Harvard Law. (an accomplishment so impossibly impressive that it needs a note)
Clinton worked for a big law firm after law school, something Obama turned down in favor of working for the people and teaching law to a new generation. Clinton then spent many years working as a first lady and achieved some admirable accomplishments.
She also suffered some failures. In 1994, she botched a heath care reform, though admittedly against impossible odds. She listed that as her greatest mistake last month in a "Meet the Cadidate" series.
She was an active member of the senate and pushed through and co-sponsored many bills. She was working, of course, against the republican majority and despite this she achieved a few successes. The difference with her entire approach has been that she treats the republican party as the enemy. While this "51%" strategy works sometimes and the democrats enjoy a majority today, several things just can't be done without a broader majority.
We would have pulled out the troops and given heath care to children already if 51% worked. Obama is my choice because he hasn't burned any bridges so far. While he has "pretty speeches" it is obvious that he is convincing and that is what will be needed in an effective president.
Obama has the best chance of expanding the democrats into the two thirds party instead of just the majority party and then we will see some real results. Now can we trust him with all that power? Of course we can. This democracy is so open scrutinized by the public and the media that nothing can really be accomplished without the blessing of the people and the other two thirds of the federal government. Obama's record shows that he is not a loose cannon and his intelligence is obvious.
Competent, inspiring, capable, brilliant. Obama 2008.
"Does experience not mean anything anymore? If you were hiring for any job in the world, experience would be the first thing you look for, not "hope" or "change". If you were hiring a pilot to take your family across country, would you find the LEAST experienced pilot, if your family's safety were at stake? Well, our country's safety is at stake, and the country is after the LEAST experience?"
from "MG January 6, 2008 6:19 pm ET"
It's not that Obama is inexperienced, it's just that he has had different experiences like working as a community organizer in inner city Chicago. There are experienced airline pilots who fly drunk, I wouldn't hire them either. Besides, noone, no matter who is elected, is going to run this country alone. I believe Obama has the best chance of getting the support of the rest of the country and the country's "experienced" politicians to work alongside of him.
There seems to be a lot of people who seem to think Obama has no experience. But to my mind he has enormous experience in one of the areas that count most – emotional intelligence.
Dealing with world leaders on the political stage depends on both policy and influence. The first seems more demanding – but good leaders surround themselves with clear minds to help craft good policy.
It's the second area which is the critical one – it's emotional intelligence that makes the peace accords happen, that can confront dictators effectively, ("Mr Gorbachev – tear down this wall") – because ultimately all world leaders are people. If you can't handle people well – that is with both strength AND caring – you can't be an effective president. You can only be an effective mouthpiece for policy.
And unlike most politicians, Obama has this quality of emotional intelligence in spades. In an era of deteriorating social mood, this is a quality the world badly needs, especially from its leaders. And I for one am relieved to see it surfacing.
REGARDLESS OF WHICH CANDIDATES ARE RUNNING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, AMERICA HAVE BEEN PLAGUED WITH PROBLEMS WHICH HAVE DRAWN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO THE DOGMATICAL DEBATE. THE AMERICA PEOPLE HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING DOG'S EARED POLITICS. AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IS NOT UNITY AMONG PARTIES: DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN, INDEPENDENT OR PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE ONE PERFECT GOVERNMENT IF SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STATES AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WE SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT THE POWOW HAVE BEEN MARCHING IN CIRCLES FOR LEADERSHIP POWER WITHOUT AN EXIST OR SOLUTIONS TO INNERCITY,FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC PROBLEMS. AMERICA HAVE GONE INTO OUTER SPACE TRYING TO FIND ANSWERS, BUT THE ANSWERS ARE SIMPLE. WORLD UNIFICATION OF GOD.
How in the world do people think that Obama ismore electable than Hillary? Realize that the GOP will rip him apart. HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE RUNNING ANYTHING! He is just some lowly junior senator from Illinois. Gov. Richardson has more experience than this guy. America elected a "likeable" candidate we became engolfed in the Bush years – look where we are. Just because Hillary is abrasive does not make her bad – in fact I would rather have a leader that is feared by people than someone who can be pushed over (Bush and Obama).
If democrats are stupid enough to nominate Obama, then we will surely be destined to 8 more years of Republican rule. Look at who the GOP are tossing gabs at – Hillary. They are completely freaked out at the possibility of going up against her. They don't give a crap about Obama-because they know they will tear him apart. He has not foreign experience – no relationships with any foreign people, no credibility on big policy issues. How can you say he is ready to run the country? Maybe after 8 years of VP, then we can elect him. That is what the GOP will say.
And all this stuff about Hillary being corrupt – there is no basis to this. All politicians get $$$ from all kinds of people. Where is the proof? If she is, why didn't the GOP get her in jail while they are in control? Everything has been disproved – but yet everyone keeps saying it. Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Wake up Democrats – no matter how much you may hate the idea – Hillary IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY TO TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE.
hey its greta to see people fired up about their govt and politics again obama good job inspiring all Americans again to reach for something higher, when Americans come together around a cause anything is possible, obama will eclipse hrc in all the other states, America wants real change and obama is it!
I was so pleased to read your insight. Your assessment extends beyond the usual vapid dribble. Your insight resonates with me. Unlike you I am aghast by the hyperbole masking the Obama cult, the new high priest of CHANGE. And unlike you I am skeptical by this supposed new found imagination of HOPE. Such qualities did not appear in the Gore/Bush contest of 2000 or the Kerry/Bush contest of 2004 which would have preemted current historical political catastrophy. The internal dynamics of culture is conservative and therefore I am skeptical. But foremost I am skeptical of human nature, especially one grounded in a social hyperreality engined by the internet allowing immediate consumption and fueled by unreasoned passion. History is a bin full of such convulsive political ardor. I am still hopeful for Senator Clinton, the brunt of fascistic forces who have defined the American political landscape for the last 8 years. But who is now having to endure the aspersions of a passionate public with a world view lacking understanding of geo-political realities and oblivious to cultural nuances. Thank you for your insight.
I believe Obama is riding on the coat tails of Oprah. I don't think he would be where he is without her. I think people are and will vote for him because, when Oprah speaks, people listen. Right now people are listening to Oprah not Obama. What ever happened to voting for the most qualified candidate. Just like applying for a job, you look for the best candidate with the best expierence. If he wants to get into the White House he should do it on his own accord, and not with Oprah. By using Oprah, it makes me look at him as a weak person. Someone with no confidence. That's not what I want in a President.
Who truly represents America? Hillary!!! Obama comes from a mixed back and white family, his mom is a white, and his dad is a black. Yes, I read an article that claimed Obama represents the black because he chose a black wife. But, his black origin is so different from his wife’s. Yes, he decides to choose a black wife, because his white mum abandoned him early, because he felt being abandoned by the white. If Freud says childhood affects adulthood, how would you expect him having healthy feelings to represent America, where most middle class are white?
time for america to lose its status as super power with leader like obama.
One would almost think Obama's supporters had spent their entire lives parked in front of the television. I notice some eerie similarities: 5th grade level spelling, and a tendency to speak entirely in platitudes. Obama is the Tuesday's with Morrie candidate. Being inspirational is not necessarily the best qualification for office. Obama's low estimate of the critical thinking abilities of American citizens is being justified daily. He takes money from insurance companies, but presents himself as the alternative to corporate greed. His principles as presented on his website and in the debates are vague and yes, inspirational enough to convince the intellectually lazy that he believes whatever they do. If I had known all was required was to use the word "change" (to nothing in particular, or everything, or whatever) 58,000 times in one week I would have run for president years ago. But maybe I'm not bland and attractive enough to make a convincing TV president.
Obama Violates New Hampshire Robocall Laws
By SusanUnPC on January 6, 2008 at 7:34 PM in Clinton, Obama, Presidential Candidates
The New Hampshire laws that the Obama campaign is violating include:
sending “robocalls” to “do not call” numbers, and
failing to identify its sponsor (Obama) until 38 seconds into the call (New Hampshire law requires identification within the first 30 seconds).
[UPDATE: Taylor Marsh has nitty gritty on the laws, and more.]
The fine? $5,000 per violation. Here’s the audio of the call (transcript below). The robocall is, of course, a smear on Sen. Hillary Clinton. I have to ask: Why an attack at this point? Isn’t his bounce sufficient?
Time magazine reports that “[t]he Clinton campaign is holding a conference call this evening to discuss the legal issues associated with the Obama campaign’s illegal activity with Kathy Sullivan and Howard Wolfson.”
There are two legal questions associated with the Obama campaign’s robocall.
1. The Obama campaign delivered this robocall to people on the do-not-call list. The Concord Monitor reported that it was “illegal under state law to send prerecorded political messages to those on the do-not-call list,” after such calls were used against Rep. Paul Hodes in 2006. In response the New Hampshire Democratic Party said that it would be “prepared and ready to pursue any legal course of action necessary to protect the people of New Hampshire from illegal activities.” [Concord Monitor, 11/6/06]
2. The call does not identify its sponsor — the Obama campaign — for 38 seconds. State law requires the sponsor to be named within 30 seconds. The robocall implies that it is sponsored by Planned Parenthood Northern New England. [RSA 664:14]
Here is the call transcript:
“Hi this is Wendy Frosh, chair of the board of Planned Parenthood in Northern New England. As people have begun to rally around Barack Obama’s call for change, the (inaudible) attacks have begun. He was a (inaudible) activist in reproductive rights for more than 20 years, I know the facts. Barack has a 100% pro-choice record and has always been a champion for women’s rights. Hillary Clinton’s last minute smears won’t protect the right to choose. But as president, Barack Obama will. Please join me in supporting Barack Obama this Tuesday. Thank you. Paid for by Obama for America.”
I have always been an avid follower of the news and politics. However, I am finding myself more disillusioned about the role of the media in politics. Prior to Watergate, the media's role was to report truthfully the facts. Since Watergate it's as if the media's role and goal is to one-up the competition and attempt to shape the news rather than report it. The polls that are constantly being set forth as how the "public" and "people" are thinking and feeling are often psychometrically flawed, meaning that they aren't worth the paper in which they are reported. The media reporting those results as sure things are, in my opinion, attempts to sway the public's opinion rather than report the facts. It seems the media is looking to shape this presidential election by maneuvering to put in place a young, black orator against most likely a Mormon millionaire. What great news that would be, right?
We, as thinking people must evaluate every candidate on their record and the media should provide us the facts, not the spin. We have had 8 years of a neophyte in office with disastrous effects. Is Barack Obama inspirational? Yes. Is he eloquent? Yes. But it takes more than inspiration and eloquence to bring about change. He has no experience applicable to being president and I find it a very frightening proposition that he would be the Democratic nominee in the general election. Obama, Edwards and these polls that are being touted as definitive would have us believe that change and experience are mutually exclusive. That is ridiculous. That is the same premise that has kept this country divided. You're either with us or against us. You are either conservative or liberal. You are either right or left. I thought both Obama and Edwards were looking to unite yet they are saying you are either for change or experience, i.e. the status quo, you can't be both. Does that seem logical or rational? By framing their appeal in such a way should be very telling as to whether or not they truly are looking to unite this country.
I think the media should stop trying to bring this contest to a halt by announcing the winner of the nomination after just one caucus, which by its form in and of itself is a dubious indicator of national sentiments. The nominating process includes all the of the United States, not just one or two. We should be allowed the opportunity to have all the states weigh in before a winner is declared either expressly or implicitly. I wonder what would have happened when Bobby Kennedy ran for the nomination if the media we have now was reporting then? They would have reported him the loser long before he won the California primary. Sadly it was a bullet that stopped that historic movement. But I think the media has become the metaphoric bullet today.
I really don't know who I will vote for, but I do know that I will be taking that responsibility very seriously and want the opportunity to vote before the media has declared the winner.
Globalization makes foreign policy more important and sophisticated. Assuming Obama and Hillary are both smart, Hillary who has more political experience definitely has more advantages. She not only has a president husband, who has a proven track record, but she herself has congress experience. So domestically, she knows Washington inside and out to get bills passed fast. Obama, he will spend all his years in Washington just to learn all these!!! Internationally, Hillary is not only experienced but sophisticated. She knows how to handle China, North Korea, and Middle East. But Obama, who says he will talk with North Korea right away? Who says he will ban all Chinese imports? We all know things are more complicated than that.
Change! Change! Yes, we all crave for changes from Bush Administration. But change for better or for worse? Do we need a change that throws away the baby with the
bath water? When you have a candidate with a proven track record and a candidate with no experience, choosing the latter is not only unwise, but irresponsible.
I think you should give the voters a bit more credit.
I have a couple of topics to touch on:
First, Obama won the nomination when he won Iowa (contrary to what most political experts will tell you). Democrats across this country WANT to vote for Barack Obama. He is ecxciting and he has a fresh, unifying vision for our country. The only reason he has trailed is that democrats weren't convinced that he is winner. All he had ever won was a couple of state races and a Senate race against one of the weakest republican candidates in Illinois history. Now he has brought the house of Clinton and the strongest political machine in the land to its knees. He is a winner and democrats will embrace him as they have no other candidate in 40 years.
Second, The Republican nomination is now a two man race. McCain versus Huckabee. This will be a deciding moment for the GOP. They can choose a war veteran with incredible experience and an honest disposition, or an ultra-fundamentalist reactionary. If they pick Huckabee (believe me, his happy-go-lucky, friendly front is nothing more than an impressive scam) Republicans will have brought about their own downfall. McCain on the other hand (despite the fact that I vigorously disagree with his politics) will give Mr. Obama a run for his money. If McCain wins, he may well be the levee that stops a Democratic tidal wave. If Huckabee wins, Democrats will end up with 250 seats in the house and 57 or 58 senators. The Republican party will collapse.
Third, CNN needs new screeners for these posts (not to mention new leadership and new journalists). Why would CNN post a comment about how Obama is a secret Muslim? We have freedom of speech, but that does not include libel. I try and try to like CNN, but they simply continue to disappoint. They're debates were amateur compared to ABC's and their news coverage focuses on the sensational, rather than the critical. I will hope for better in the future.
I heard Obama make a comment that when he would be elected, at least then Bush and cousin Cheney would be out of office, then comment that one wished for a relative to be Abe Lincoln, etc. I thought it was very funny. However, an uproar would be heard if the table was turned, as America has become so politically correct, it has no sense of humor anymore. Louise, NC
So' there are 30 more states for Obama to win. So what! He'll have them all fired up with his speaches' of Hope and Change! And first thing you know, the poles will be going higher and higher. And you will be running around saying where do I vote, where do I vote. He has "it", what ever you call it, he's got "it".
The first time I voted was for J. F. K. and he had "it".
I'm now 65 and Obama gives me the same feeling I had way back then.
"It" for me is Hope for change in the future.
"It's" something that some of you have never felt. "It's" something that urges you to run to the pole and vote for the President you want, not the one most "electabe", not the most known, not even the most "intelligent", but the one person that you want in the White House. The one you turst to do the right thing.
That’s what "It" means to me.
So go Vote........and think before you Vote
I think we can all agree, Lincoln was a superb president who entered office just at a time when the country faced monumental challenges. The nation was divided, and conflict was eminent. Through his leadership, the United States of America was able to overcome sectional differences and become that much more free. Now, was Lincoln an experienced politician? Had he held many executive positions? No, Lincoln served only one term in the Congress. It just goes to show you that experience is not necessarily a required trait to be a viable president.
One would almost think Obama's supporters had spent their entire lives parked in front of the television. I notice some eerie similarities: 5th grade level spelling, and a tendency to speak entirely in platitudes. A lot of exclamation points, also reminiscent of the 5th grade. Obama is the Tuesday's with Morrie candidate. Being inspirational is not necessarily the best qualification for office. Obama's low estimate of the critical thinking abilities of American citizens is being justified daily. He takes money from insurance companies, but presents himself as the alternative to corporate greed. His principles as presented on his website and in the debates are vague and yes, inspirational enough to convince the intellectually lazy that he believes whatever they do. If I had known all was required was to use the word "change" (to nothing in particular, or everything, or whatever) 58,000 times in one week I would have run for president years ago. But maybe I'm not bland and attractive enough to make a convincing TV president.
Michael who asked about term limits... if you have to ask why Bush is not running and if there are term limits, then you are not informed enough to be voting. Go back to school and take a high school level American government class and then consider calling yourself a real American.
"The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, surveyed 341 likely Democrats and 268 Republicans likely to vote in Tuesday's primary. It had a sampling error of 5 percentage points."
So let's see. Margin of error of 5 percentage points. That means factoring in the margin of error, Obama could be at 34% (39- 5) and Hillary could be at 34% (29 + 5). In other words, a statistical deadheat. Of course, that wouldn't be as sensationalist, would it?
The American people deserve the president the media picks for them.