CBS Poll: Lack Of Experience Hurts Obama
Illinois Senator Seen As Candidate With New Ideas, But Trails Clinton By 20 Points In Democratic Race
-
Photo
Sen. Barack Obama, left, continues to trail Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to the latest CBS News poll. (AP)
-
Photo Essay
Barack Obama
The junior senator from Illinois is making his name known.
-
Photo Essay
Hillary Rodham Clinton
The Democratic Senator from New York and former first lady sets her sights on the White House.
While Obama is seen as the candidate offering fresh new ideas, Sen. Hillary Clinton is seen as the one with the right experience to be president. Clinton continues to hold a commanding lead over Obama, 45 percent to 25 percent, among those planning to vote in a Democratic primary. Former Sen. John Edwards is third with 14 percent.
IF THESE WERE THE CANDIDATES, WHO WOULD YOU WANT AS DEM NOMINEE? (Among Democratic Primary Voters)
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Clinton is also seen as being more electable than Obama, and some voters think Obama's race and even his name may be a problem for him next November.
More than half of voters (51 percent) think Obama, a first-term U.S. senator from Illinois, does not have the right kind of experience to be a good president, compared with 29 percent who think he does.
On the other hand, 59 percent of voters think Clinton, the former first lady and a two-term senator from New York, has the right experience, while 35 percent think she does not.
RIGHT EXPERIENCE TO BE PRESIDENT? (Among registered voters)
Obama
Yes
No
Clinton
Yes
No
Voters are confident that both candidates would make good decisions about dealing with foreign countries, although Clinton scores slightly better. Far fewer voters have confidence in Obama's ability to deal with an international crisis. Many are doubtful about Clinton in this area, too.
Obama does have an advantage when it comes to new ideas. The Illinois senator has presented himself as the candidate of change, and voters view him that way. Sixty-one percent think he'd try new ways of solving the country's problems, while just 18 percent think he'd stick to familiar approaches.
Clinton is seen as more traditional: 43 percent think she'd try new ideas, while 40 percent think she'd follow familiar approaches.
Voters are divided as to whether experience or new ideas matter more in a presidential candidate. Which quality they prefer influences how they vote. Among Democrats who value experience, Clinton leads Obama by more than three to one, 49 to 16 percent. Among those who value fresh ideas, Obama leads Clinton, 38 to 35 percent.
Obama is seen as being better at connecting with voters than Clinton, and is considered more likeable. But voters see Obama as less electable than Clinton: Forty-six percent of registered voters think he could be elected president if he wins the Democratic nomination, while 62 percent think Clinton cold be elected.
Can They Win? (Among registered voters)
Obama
Yes
No
Clinton
Yes
No
Among Democratic primary voters, 76 percent think Clinton can win, as do 54 percent for Obama.
Obama may have additional hurdles to clear with some voters because of his ethnicity and his name.
Thirty-eight percent think Obama's name will be a problem for many voters, while 58 percent think it won't be. One in 10 say Obama's name reminds them of Osama bin Laden or associate the name with terrorism. And 7 percent think, incorrectly, that Obama is a Muslim.
Some voters say Obama's race may be an obstacle to his electability. Eighteen percent of those who doubt his electability cite Obama’s race as the reason he couldn't win. Even more, 37 percent, mention his lack of experience.
However, Clinton's gender is also working against her: 37 percent of voters who think she can't win say it's because she's a woman; another 25 percent say it's because people dislike her or her husband.
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1214 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone August 8-12, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. An oversample of African Americans was also conducted for this poll, for a total of 169 interviews among this group and 149 African American registered voters. The results were then weighted in proportion to the racial composition of the adult population in the U.S. Census. The margin of error for African Americans (overall and registered voters) is plus or minus 8 percentage points.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
- Latest in Opinion: CBS News Polls
- Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option
- Poll: Sotomayor Still An Unknown
- Poll: No Dent In Obama's Popularity



1. He is the most ignorant, inexperienced and lest-capable Dem politician running for president.
2. He is a total hypocrite on lobbyists. His efforts in support of Illinois lobbyists have cost US taxpayers $12 million (so far). (Documented by Brian Ross on July 16 - see ABC NEWS website) Michael Bauer, part of BO''s National LGBT Leadership Council, is registered as a lobbyist with ResPubica Group, a Chicago based firm that serves corporate and noncorporate clients.
3. His shady real-estate dealings with his partner-in-crime Rezko stink!
4. Bomb Pakistan, a current US ally.
5. Note carefully this exchange to understand how dangerous it would be to have such an IGNORAMUS in change of nuclear weapons:
2007-08-02 19:00:39 -
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons +in any circumstance.
+I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,; Obama said, with a pause, +involving civilians.; Then he quickly added, +Let me scratch that. There''s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That''s not on the table."
America can, and MUST, do better than O-BOMBA.
THAT is experience, when wielded strongly, that gets things accomplished. Period.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: There was a story out of Seattle, and the reason I love it is that it''s transparency in the news. You have an editor who was actually outing his own people. The Seattle Times newsroom broke into applause when Karl Rove resigned. And of course that''s bad. What I like about it is that the editor actually wrote about it and went in and told the people in the newsroom that was unacceptable.
And I''ve got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President''s State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president actually from the beginning to the end. And I actually talked to [NBC/MSNBC executive] Phil Griffin about it, and he said "how was it last night?" Because he was the one that called me out of the Ace Hardware store, got my vest on. He said "how was it last night?" I said "well, it''s OK, I understand it''s a little bit different up here than it is down in northwest Florida, but you had people in the newsroom actively booing the President of the United States. Phil turned red very quickly. That didn''t happen again.
Great news: the MSNBC newsroom no longer actively boos the President! But did Griffin replace any of the offenders and bring in professionals, or is MSNBC still staffed by people who simply do their booing on the inside?
First, Obama is not a Muslim. He''s a member of the United Church of Christ. His pastor, Jeremiah Wright of Trinity UCC in Chicago, can attest to this. He''s been a member of that church for several years. Prior to that, he was unaffiliated. He was not raised as a Muslim. His mother, from Kansas, raised him non-denominational.
Second, Obama never said "bomb Pakistan." Get a grip and read the news. He is quoted everywhere as stating that he would work with Musharref to get bin Ladin. If Musharref doesn''t cooperate, Obama then would perhaps move independently against al Qaida, based on confirmed intelligence of his whereabouts. Since when is getting bin Laden, the person responsible for the deaths of 3000+ Americans not a priority anymore???
God help America if the ignorant people vote her in, we deserve the trouble we get.
With 2011/2012 looming over us as all prophesy IN DIFFERENT CULTURES has proclaimed, who do we NEED to be in charge, some power crazed woman or a candidate with a cool head who knows what is the right thing to do. Definitely a conservative type is needed.
Bush may be blundering but he may know more than we do and may just be right. Iran needs to be put in their place, they have a nut in charge who may have nuclear weapons in the near future and is crazy enough to doom our planet, of which they live on too, with launching them. Bush is right we need to stop them now, and we need to get the countries who have been supplying them to stop, cause these weapons will be used on them too!!! Read Nostradamus and his WWIII predictions, as well as a few others.
I would vote for her, but not for Obama. Not only is he inexperienced, his desire to shoot of his mouth about what he might do as president has been bad for the war on terror. Clinton hasn''t said those kinds of things.
I could probably vote for Fred Thompson except he''s drunk all the Tort Reform Kool Aid and wants to take the right to sue away from common people without stopping big corporations from suing one another, or suing to collect debts. Otherwise I like him.
But I think Hillary is really the one to watch.
Christian. My gosh, don''t people know anything? Secondly, WHAT experience? What is this ''experience'' that Clinton ''has''? Absolutely none to be president. I for one do not want her in the White House making presidential decisions for me when she voted for Iraq. What poor judgment, to begin with, and what ''experience'' does that draw from? And what is this ''experience'' that Obama ''does not have''? I don''t think ''lack of experience'' hurts Obama. I think it is the selling of saying lack of experience hurts him, that hurts him. It''s all a myth, another ploy to turn heads away from him and instead of calling it like it is -- race, it''s called ''lack of experience''. Amazing, over one hundred years after slavery and here we are at this juncture, with bigotry and prejudice still as rampant as ever. I think what this is saying is that if the masses are saying today that this qualified black man (and true red-blooded American man) will not be elected because of his race then it will never happen -- as long as bigotry still exists, and bigotry will exist until the end of time, because those who created it and wish it to perpetuate, will be here until the end of time. Too bad how we ourselves hold us back, how we ourselves wallow in our own shortsightedness and shortcomings, and think we''ve gotten ahead when all we''ve really done -- is stand still.
Posted by oxmyx at 01:03 PM : Aug 16, 2007
Oh my, he''s a christian and you defend him on that? I thought you libs despised religeous people.
Posted by charliemudca at 01:01 PM : Aug 16, 2007
You libs worry more about religion than any republican...WHO CARES HOW HE WORSHIPS!!! You use the christian card as it suits you; first to insult the right and second to boost the image of your candidates. HYPOCRITE.
Posted by klifton2 at 02:09 PM : Aug 16, 2007
You libs love to use this one; tell me again where Bush went to college?
I''m a Christian, a democra, and an Obama supporter and i''ve never criticized or praised any candidate for their faith. You''re generalizing to cast all liberals as being the same. Of course, I understand that''s what folks on both sides like to do here, so I''m not singling you out.
The fact is that there are people lieing and saying Obama is a Muslim when he''s not.
It''s bad enough the retarded republicants are stuck with Giuliani and Romney.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 04:22 PM : Aug 16, 2007
Okay, thanks for the clarification. The fact is, and it really is insignificant, that his name is muslim as that is how he was raised. There is of course nothing wrong with that. Except that it is ironic how similar his name is to America''s greatest enemy, Osama BinLaden. Maybe that''s what the people (liars) you speak of are talking about.
The democrats demonstrate lots of experience at losing. Gore, Kerry, Edwards and now Hillary and Obama!
WOW! Now that''s a string that''s hard to beat.
Clearly, pandering to the radical Left simply isn''t paying off. I''m angry because we are moving ever closer to a single party dominance in presidential politics.
We deserve somebody with middle American traditional values, who will represent all the people. The media doesn''t elect the President. That''s our job!
There are a lot of people with Arab names who are Christians. You may not be aware of it but Christ is a prophet in the Islam religion and many Muslems converted to Christianity.
Posted by aldewitt at 01:12 PM : Aug 16, 2007
Me too... Considering that Bill Clinton was the greatest "republican" president since Lincoln, there is no doubt in my mind that she is exactly like Bill in that respect.
Let''s see...Bill pushed through NAFTA (when Reagan & Bush41 couldn''t) and the result was that hundreds of thousands of good-paying working-class jobs were lost.
What else...? Oh, yeah. He ended welfare for the poor (a good thing) and also increased welfare for the rich with his tax breaks for the wealthy.
Bill Clinton was a traitor to the class of people from which he came.
As for Hillary: She is smart enough to continue the screwwing that Bush has been doing to us for over six years.
In addition, we don''t need to continue the phuckking family dynasty rule in this country!!!
A string of business failures and lack of experience didn''t hurt Bush, but he certainly did hurt the U.S of A.
The only thing hurting Obama is the lack of a "Rove-like" character to polish his image and dig up some dirt on his opponents...
Posted by katg21 at 03:03 PM : Aug 16, 2007
_______________
Yeah, rub it in, katg21. Bush went to Yale and ONLY managed to get a "C" average. And Harvard business school still didn''t keep him from engaging in a long string of failed businesses.
Besides, Bush didn''t get into Yale because of his merits; it was daddy''s wealth and influence that did it.
Here''s a guy so stupid that, in spite of being in the 25th percentile for pilot aptitude, he still insisted on becoming a fighter pilot in the Texas ANG in order to evade duty in Vietnam.
25th percentile!!! LOL!!! No wonder he quit flying!!!
Again, Bush didn''t get into the Texas ANG on his flying abilities; it was his daddy''s wealth and influence. In fact, in spite of his lack of flying acumen, he was placed in the Texas ANG ahead of over 100 qualified pilots returning from Vietnam.
Wow!!! Wealth and influence can work wonders, even if your name is Bush and you''re dumber than dumb.
OBTW: If a "commoner" went to Yale and put forth the same effort (or lack of it) that Bush did, the "commoner" would be kicked out.
_________________
Does anyone really know what Bush''s experience was before he was "groomed" by Rove & Co. to become president?
I mean, *****, the guy couldn''t even speak third-grade English during his first term.
Most of his businesses failed. And in the one that didn''t (Texas Rangers), he ended up screwwing the citizens of Arlington Texas over the ball park. Just like he''s been screwwing the citizens of the U.S. for the past six years.
Speaking of Hitlar: Hitler was a right-wing authoritarian (fascist), and a Christian; just like Bush is a right-wing authoritarian, and a Christian (or so he says).
Go figure...
Posted by jack3213 at 01:22 PM : Aug 16, 2007
___________________
Funny, jack3213. Your two posts are word-for-word from a forum on topix.net posted by someone else.
I suppose you''re going to tell me that you are "Minnesota Mike" from New Prague, MN.
Do you always troll the forums and "borrow" comments from other people?
You''re about as fake as fake can be. You and katg21 would make a great "pair."
Posted by tru_america1 at 08:02 AM : Aug 17, 2007
What I said wasn''t racist, do you even know what that is? You are an idiot if you can''t see the correlation between his name and the name of the person who launched the most deadly attacks on us in american history. So, where are the lies and half truths in what I said? His name is Barack Hussein Obama, right? I think I''m correct in saying that most people won''t be able to see past that, no matter how decent of a man he is, and it''s a shame. And that''s my opinion.
Posted by fake-id at 06:27 AM : Aug 17, 2007
Ooh, we''ve got the cyber police on us. Fake-id, you were a hall monitor weren''t you?
Posted by down-ndirty at 05:59 AM : Aug 17, 2007
Love it! Try and justify it if you will, it takes a pretty smart person to make even a "C" at Yale. You''re forgetting, he got his MBA at Harvard too...man what an idiot. What are your credentials to be making such judgements on one''s intellegence? As far as being unsuccessful at business, at least he tried. He did manage to SUCCESSFULLY run one of the largest states in the union as Governor of Texas. I suppose you think it was his daddy''s wealth and influence that helped him with that too. You people crack me up. Bush may not be as eloquent as say, Bill Clinton, but at least he has his convictions and sticks to them. You dems only like the politicians that hollywood tells you to like; the kind who pander and talk out of both sides of their mouths.
Getting Cs at Yale doesn''t necessarily make a person smart.
My best friend attnded grad school at Harvard; he told me that he never farted around as much as when he was there because the professors assume if you''re smart enough to get in you don''t need to be challenged.
The problem with that theory is that some people are admitted for reasons other than smarts, like athletes and the sons of powerful politicians.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 08:55 AM : Aug 17, 2007
If it makes you feel better to think that way then go ahead, really don''t care. Why, I ask you, didn''t Bush''s daughters Jenna and Barbara go there then? Lord knows they could get in on privilege alone. And what of Chelsea Clinton, did her father influence her attendence to the college of her choice? Nonsense, all of it.
It''s pretty much common knowledge that prestigous Colleges admit the kids of influential patrons and I don''t doubt that Chelsea Clinton and the Kennedys benefited in the same way. Barbara Bush did go to Yale but Jenna chose a party school, that was her choice.
If they asked voters if they think he has the right experience to be president, or if he can win, they didn''t report it.
I guess they know they will make sure he doesn''t get a chance to win.
We saw how well that worked with Bush. Aides have said that even 2 days before the invasion of Iraq he didn''t know that there were Sunni and Shiite Islamic sects in Iraq.
But then these are the people who think he''s a Muslim because his middle name is Hussein, which is as common as John in Nigerian society. By the way, Nigeria is and has always been a loyal American ally.
If they asked voters if they think he has the right experience to be president, or if he can win, they didn''''t report it.
I guess they know they will make sure he doesn''''t get a chance to win.
Posted by weareone2 at 11:32 AM : Aug 17, 2007
Yep, Hillary''s the media darling.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 11:28 AM : Aug 17, 2007
Okay so what the he!! are we talking about. Why don''t you look up the transcripts of everyone we discussed here and judge them on their intellegence? I''m sure they have all made some "C''s" at some point. Truth is, you judge Bush on the way he speaks, his lack of eloquence. I agree he is not a very good speaker but Ross Perot sounded even worse, why didn''t anyone challenge his intellegence?
-
by down-ndirty
August 17, 2007 5:40 PM PDT
- He did manage to SUCCESSFULLY run one of the largest states in the union as Governor of Texas. Posted by katg21 at 08:40 AM : Aug 17, 2007
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 45 Comments_______________________
ROFLMMFAO!!!! SUCCESSFULLY??????
Texas during the Bush as governor years: #2 in population; #13 in violent crime; #1 in executions; last in education and air quality.
"What are your credentials to be making such judgements on one''''s [Bush''s] intellegence?" I''ve read many books on the Bush family, and especially books about George W.
Your problem is you can''t see past your bias, AND you don''t do your research before you engage the keyboard. LOL!!!
Other than managing the partnership that owned the Texas Rangers (he was only a figurehead there, too), name ONE business that Bush ran successfully...