inexperience! naivité! unpresidential!

The Senator is not ready for prime time.

The Senator is not ready for prime time.

indeed. obama doesn't have the good sense to limit prospective military operations in pakistan to nuclear strikes. and he doesn't have enough shrums on his team.

I have been saying awhile that Obama's manager Mr Axelrod is an idiot. Obama is going down like Dean unless he fires Axelrod now today.

Maybe Obama should hire Karl Rove?

This is a touchy topic, because I think it also works to Obama's advantage. Hillary is old Washington, while Obama is new. While people may not know much about him, he has the opportunity to shape and change people's opinions, but most people have their minds made up one way or another with Hillary. I'm interested in seeing if her presidential nominee campaign can change many of those votes.

This is not news. Everyone knows about the "black gap" where approval of blacks is ALWAYS higher than actual votes. People will vote, in the privacy of the voting booth, to express their hate, their prejudice, their mean little ideas. So, I bet that, if they held the election today, Obama would get an even smaller actual number of votes than SAID that they would vote for him.

He's black. America is ready I think for Sen Clinton. I don't think that America is ready for Sen Obama.

I want Obama to succeed. But if he can't even handle Hillary, I'm not sure how he's going to handle the challenges of the White House. As for David Axelrod being an idiot: Maybe. But he gets paid whether Barrack wins or not. So maybe he's not.

Count me in that group. Obama is interesting, inspirational, and, to date, seemingly a little underqualified. I listened to him on healthcare a while back, and he clearly wasn't ready for prime time. Still - he still has the possibility of growing into something special, so we'll see. That said, within the democratic field he's still second or third on my list.

Yep, nothing like being Gov'na of Texas to prep you for the world stage.

POed;
Sadly, I agree.
Sometime between now and Nov '08, I'm going to attend a Hillary rally, and I'm going to carry a big sign:

"4 more years!"

Criticizing Obama's staff may be unfair. I get the impression the author treats "the gap" like some ground-breaking new discovery simply because it makes the paragraph more interwsting. Nowhere is a direct quote from Obama's people saying, "we were astonished" or "We had never seen such a thing".

In the next paragraph Lizza outlines the staff strategy for overcoming the limitations of weak translation of approval to votes, and it seems to me the strategy was well-developed and implemented early, which leads me to believe they were aware it was likely to be a problem from the get-go

John Edwards is the only candidate that beats every Republican by more than 10 points-he has a good progressive message and is always the leader in bringing up positions that the public can get behind. I'm tired of the press always criticizing him for the silliest things. It shows how much corporations are afraid of his support for the average citizen.

As much as I love the ideas Obama puts forth on how politics should work, it seems he ignores a lot of his own advice (see the attacks on Clinton via email).

I'm also not so sure about all his tough talk on foreign policy. I understand he's trying to show toughness and resolve, but his answers are easily misconstrued because they lack the type of nuance one usually finds in such talk.

Both of these show a lack of experience not just on the campaign trail, but on how the system works.

Of course, the question then turns to: Is having someone not part of the usual DC-insider cabal a bad thing?

We all complain about typical politicians, how we want someone different, how it'd be nice if someone not a career politician won the race.

But when it comes down to it, we don't seem so sold when it actually happens.

I have no real point ... just babbling out some random thoughts on a hot, boring day.

**crawls back under rock**

...with the percentage who said they would vote for him....
versus
...of her also say they will vote for her.

Will vote or would vote? A big difference. I would vote for any of the Dem candidates (except Kucinich (ms?)), but I haven't decided who I will vote for. Difference in exclusivity.

No opinion proffered until I know which we're talking about.

Rogers nails is at 3:18. I can't imagine that the Obama campaign was surpised that the incredibility charismatic but relatively new to the national scene Obama would have a high approval/actual votes ratio early in the campaign. Did Obama's pollsters really view the gap as "odd" as claimed by Lizzy? My guess is that Obama has surrounded himself staffers with IQ's higher than 80 who pretty quickly recognized that a major challenge for the campaign would be to move people from just liking and admiring Obama to seeing him as the best person to be President.

...with the percentage who said they would vote for him....
versus
...of her also say they will vote for her.

Will vote or would vote? A big difference. I would vote for any of the Dem candidates (except Kucinich (ms?)), but I haven't decided who I will vote for. Difference in exclusivity.

No opinion proffered until I know which we're talking about.

I like Clinton, but I can't pretend that America's undecided/persuadable voters are ready for her. They'll take big Fred over Hillary in a heartbeat. She won't know what hit her if she believes what voters say they'll do in the voting booth. It's is a lot like a toilet stall. People don't always talk too honestly about what they really do in there.

This "gap" ... is common knowledge among political pros. But apparently not. Or at least, not among Obama's political pros.

Fair enough.

Let's also hope Obama's pros don't know a lot of the stuff that Kerry's and Gore's pros knew.

Because face it:
Kerry and Gore's pros weren't worth a BUSH SHIT PIE TO THE FACE!

OT: CNN - 16,000 troops hunt al Qaeda in Iraq

Too bad al Qaeda is in Pakistan where the 16,000 troops are not deployed.

There ARE no "political pros," only hacks and ratfucking protothugs.
Look at the advertising.
Look at the media buys.
These candidates spend more than half their time raising money so they can "compete," and then they use that hard-won cash to inflict the very worst kind of over-tested congealed pablum upon us. These idiots have less-than-no idea what they're doing.

That being said, I'm glad Obama's people are admitting to wondering about it. Sounds like a refreshing change from the self-assured nonsense that usually comes from campaign staffs.

To any "pros" who might be reading this, I hearken back to the immortal words of Stewart Gilligan Griffin..."You...SUCK!"

Well Hill's got one thing Obama does not,(The Big Dog)When Hill is ready to win she just let's evryone know who is on the underticket Vote Cliton/Clinton 08. A recpie that puts you smack dab in the WhiteHouse.

john john;
Yeah, but Clinton has something that Obama does not;
A Rove Operative in her home state, installed as Attorney General, digging up dirt with Gonzo's verbal OK to wiretap at will.

If Clinton gets the nod for the Dems, Rove is going to absolutely destroy her. And it's going to be President Guliani.

Reminds me of the Chris Rock joke about how white people love to say they would vote for a black man because it sounds like the right thing to say, but few would follow through in the privacy of the voting booth.

Elections are won or lost by razor thin margins, so even if the vast majority of voters have no problem voting for a black man or a white woman, it would nevertheless be foolish to deny the very real danger that the Democrats might lose yet another national election based in large part to the small percentage of people who DO have a problem voting for non white male candidates.

Nor is this exclusively the result of racism or sexism from white males. Female and African-American voters aren't exactly rallying around their respective counterparts in Hillary and Obama.

Hillary has preexisting high negatives, which probably shakes more of the undecided voters (hence leaving more people who like her for a reason). Meanwhile some African-American voters seem to have a problem trusting Obama (while the questions about whether Obama is "black enough" are juvenile, they nevertheless reflect some of concerns expressed by African-American voters).

Obama is more likable and trustworthy than Hillary, but suffers from a perception that he is lacking Hillary's experience and tough disposition that is necessary to wheel, deal, and battle Republicans and entrenched bureaucracy in Washington.

Combine them and you end up with a fairly well-rounded ticket in terms of likability, experience, idealism, and toughness. But you also get the double-whammy of a female and black candidate. Most of the people who think race and gender don't matter are idealists who probably haven't lived in the Deep South. You know, the same people who thought Kerry would make a whizzbang candidate.

Like it or not, the single best chance the Democrats have not only for winning the next election but also for making the kind of changes that the base wants and needs isn't likely to happen: a Gore/Bloomberg ticket (Bloomberg being the money who would provide the late entry Gore with the necessary funds to be competitive).

Augustus >"...(Bloomberg being the money who would provide the late entry Gore with the necessary funds to be competitive)."

While I doubt Gore is even thinking about entering the race he certainly doesn`t need Bloomberg money since he has over $100 million of his own to toss around should he choose to do so (though I can`t imagine why he would want to).

You are, of course, free to keep dreaming against all evidence tho.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift

I agree with Patrick Rogers. I think the author is explaining the concept to the uninformed reader, not saying that that the Obama camp was discovering it for the first time.

At least that's my hopeful read of it since I'd like to back Obama ...

I'm so over Gore talk. You either want to be president or you don't. If Gore wants to be president, then he should announce. He has had enough time to think about it. Of course, I think he HAS thought about it and will not be running. Please move on to your next pick.

ummm, the black theory really doesn't make sense here. we're talking about polling questions here, not the gap between polls and actual voting. if the same dynamics were in play, the gap between the two would be closer. there is a difference between approving of a candidate and voting for one. i can approve of any or all of the democrats but i can only vote for one.

You know, it shouldn't be hard for a reporter to find out if other Presidential candidates in the past also experienced the "gap".

A little real information would go a long way here.

Mudwall, the "black gap" in Obama's case actually works somewhat differently. A close friend of mine recently told me: "I'm voting for Edwards because he's white and he's a man." She obviously didn't mean she's prejudiced; she meant that looking out at the great American people who reelected Shrub in 2004, she thinks it's ludicrously naive to believe they're going to vote in a black man or a woman, so she's using her primary vote to support the candidate she thinks can win. I bet a lot of pro-Obama Democratic voters shy away from actually voting for Obama because they're afraid a black man still can't win.

Or maybe the phrase "they discovered something odd" is just a cute little expression meant to liven up the piece, not imply that they were genuinely surprised.

I wonder if it's an urban legend, but I once heard of some English PhD student who wrote her entire dissertaition about some odd word in in Moby Dick that later turned out to be a typo in the manuscript.

I think Hillary is the odd ball. Everyone knows she has the experience. They just don't know if they like her or believe in her instincts.

As a first term senator Obama has an experience hurdle to tackle and he's stumbled enough with the detailed answeres to keep the question alive. Personally, I think it's mostly a matter of improper phrasing and language that make him look a little amateur. Maybe there are are race issues too. I don't know. I don't see race :)

LOL, apologies for the seemingly racist track and field analogy.

daCascadian: While I doubt Gore is even thinking about entering the race he certainly doesn`t need Bloomberg money since he has over $100 million of his own to toss around should he choose to do so (though I can`t imagine why he would want to).

Gore's $100 million isn't enough money to fund a presidential race by itself (Bush raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars the last time out). Nor would it be rational to expect someone to deplete most of their family's wealth to fund a campaign. Bloomberg by contrast has a net worth over $5 billion.

You are, of course, free to keep dreaming against all evidence tho.

Quite the contrary, it's not about dreams it's about hard reality. The ones who are deluding themselves are the people who believe Obama's race and Hillary's gender aren't real obstacles to electability.

While the chances of a Gore presidential run is slim, and a Gore/Bloomberg ticket slimmer still, the combination would nevertheless make a stronger ticket in the general election than any Hillary/Obama/Edwards combo. Moreover, if you're interested in real reform and movement you're going to need a candidate who is both more independent than Hillary and more experienced than either Obama or Edwards. Gore fits that bill. Plus a campaign that was funded without much/any corporate contributions is going to be far more independent than a campaign like Hillary's that thrives off of corporate largess (as does her political strategy). Conversely, while Obama has an RFK-idealist appeal, it's hard to imagine him having the kind of political toughness and experience to be successful against congressional Republicans.

The likelihood is that both Obama and Hillary will end up like John Kerry: backed by front-running/bandwagon idealist Blue Staters who will ever fail to appreciate the ingrained superficiality and provincialism of your average Middle-American voter.

Are journalists racist enough to cover Presidential politics?

chance wrote ...what voters say they'll do in the voting booth. It's is a lot like a toilet stall. People don't always talk too honestly about what they really do in there.

Hilarious! that's the best analogy I've heard in months!!

I have to agree with Augustus. If the choice becomes a black man or a white woman versus a middle-aged white guy, it just seems likely that the vast pool of the "great unwashed" voters would vote for the white guy and tip the election in that direction.

The disparity seems simply to be caused by an individual's "approval/liking" of a candidate versus that individual's feeling that the candidate is "electable".
And even should a Republican be elected president in 2008, he will face a Democratic House and Senate with the only question being whether the Senate will have a veto-proof majority or not.
I doubt, however, that we need to even worry about that. All the Republican victories since the early nineties have been based on conning the independent voters; without them the Republicans can't win. And right now there is nothing the Republicans can offer the independents.
It is possible that the Democratic party may blow its present advantage but, even cynical as I am, I don't think so. Nor can I see the independent voters being so turned off by Clinton or Obama that they vote Republican.
No matter who is the Democratic nominee, there will be rivers of mud thrown at them. As in all such attacks the way to deal with them is to quickly refute them and then move back onto the attack against the other candidate.
And as long as the candidate (whover it is) doesn't listen to those DLC-spawned advisers we should be alright.

Meanwhile some African-American voters seem to have a problem trusting Obama (while the questions about whether Obama is "black enough" are juvenile, they nevertheless reflect some of concerns expressed by African-American voters).

I think you should try to find a less patronizing word than "juvenile" to describe the real concern that the descendants of African-American slaves have over accepting as one of their own a man whose forebears where not dragged over here in chains.

In any case, this is a real concern, and one that the Obama campaign has recently decided to fight head-on with their greatest weapon in this regard -- Michelle Obama.

Maybe Obama's staff should have a talk with Howard Dean.

The only thing most Hillary supporters seem to need to know is that she's female. They make everything else up to make Hillary fit in with their pre-existing ideology.

That's not true for most. But it's clear that much of her support comes from women who only care that she's the only woman in this race. It's pure tribalism, and it's pretty fucking disgusting.

I'm also not so sure about all his tough talk on foreign policy. I understand he's trying to show toughness and resolve, but his answers are easily misconstrued because they lack the type of nuance one usually finds in such talk.

I don't mean to pounce on you, Mark D, but this statement bothers me. What you refer to as "nuance," I call "hedging." While I don't agree with the strategy outlined by Obama, it is well within the norm of U.S. foreign policy. The only reason the statement even registered with the MSM is due to the fact that a) It ran counter to the perception of Obama as an idealistic peacenik and b) politicians rarely say explicitly that this is in fact fairly standard practice.

Whether one should discuss all aspects of policy protocol is a legitimate question, but I believe that any breakout from the murky, focus-grouped, sound-bite campaigning that dominates political coverage does not serve democracy in any way, shape or form. What will the candidate do? That is the question, everything else is tangential.

Hillary is no more experience than anybody else.You people are such idoits,your just buying into hype.SHE was first lady and a senator,where's the experience.If that' the case then Laura Bush should run for president.Joe biden and Chris Dodd by far are the most experience and Dennis Kunich.And you wonder why the republicans keep winning.Be fools and vote for Hillary if you want,but make no mistake you will regret it down the road.My vote is for Obama!!!!!!!!!