Gallup "honest and trustworthy" survey: John McCain first (67%), Barack Obama second (63%), Hillary Clinton third (44%).

[yllus]

Perceived Honesty Gap for Clinton Versus Obama, McCain

PRINCETON, NJ -- Hillary Clinton is rated as "honest and trustworthy" by 44% of Americans, far fewer than say this about John McCain (67%) and Barack Obama (63%).

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted March 14-16, asked Americans to rate the presidential candidates on honesty and nine other character dimensions. The 23-point gap separating Clinton and McCain on honesty is the largest between any two candidates for any dimension tested in the poll.

In addition to his strong showing on honesty, McCain also fares well on leadership. Sixty-nine percent of Americans describe the Arizona senator as "a strong and decisive leader," giving him an advantage over both Clinton (61%) and Obama (56%) in this regard.

Obama's strengths lie in his perceived empathy -- two in three Americans say he "understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives" and "cares about the needs of people like you." Clinton and McCain are in the 50% range on both of these dimensions.

Obama (51%) also edges McCain (46%) and Clinton (45%) on "shares your values."

Clinton is the leader on what proves to be a weakness for both McCain and Obama -- having a clear plan for solving the country's problems. Forty-nine percent say Clinton does, compared with 41% for Obama and 42% for McCain. Clinton has tried to emphasize this theme in her campaign in order to draw a distinction between her and Obama, and it rates as Obama's (and McCain's) lowest score.

Clinton has perhaps been less successful in convincing voters that she can better navigate her way through the Washington policy process than the other candidates. McCain (60%) leads both Clinton (51%) and Obama (48%) in terms of being able to manage the government effectively. Also, Obama (62%) and McCain (61%) finish well ahead of Clinton in terms of being able to "work well with both parties in Washington to get things done."

All three candidates are rated well with respect to having a vision for the country's future -- 68% say this about Clinton, 67% about Obama, and 65% about McCain.

One final dimension underscores another potential vulnerability for Clinton -- 47% of Americans say she is someone they would be proud to have as president (51% say they would not be proud to have Clinton). Obama (57%) and McCain (55%) both score above the majority level on this measure, which highlights that both tend to fare better on basic likability measures than Clinton.

Take the poll numbers and interpret them however you wish, keeping in mind poll results change as the race continues. I'll also add that of the 10 categories listed, Obama won 5, McCain won 3 and Clinton won 2.

 

[senseamp]

Clinton is the leader on what proves to be a weakness for both McCain and Obama -- having a clear plan for solving the country's problems. Forty-nine percent say Clinton does, compared with 41% for Obama

Why didn't you put this in the title?
A man, no plan, a cabal, Obama

 

[daveymark]

that traitor bush is less honest than all three of those. I won't be voting for bush come november, mark my words.

 

[manowar821]

How the hell does that dinosaur have that much support? That many idiots want ANOTHER imperialist pig as president?

 

[jpeyton]

The numbers will be skewed in the GOPs favor until the Dems lock down a candidate.

But this should be more damning evidence against Hillary's campaign of lies. Clearly, Obama is a much stronger candidate for November than she is.

 

[Genx87]

No surprise at this point in the game. McCain has had the nomination sealed for months and has been laying low gathering money. Obama gets a total pass from the media who apparently see him as the second coming of Christ. Hillary is Hillary and the media is turning on her.

Wait until Sept when McCain and Obama finally have their demons exposed for the country to see.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87
No surprise at this point in the game. McCain has had the nomination sealed for months and has been laying low gathering money. Obama gets a total pass from the media who apparently see him as the second coming of Christ. Hillary is Hillary and the media is turning on her.

Wait until Sept when McCain and Obama finally have their demons exposed for the country to see.

McCain is obsessed with war. Is that bad enough for you?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87
No surprise at this point in the game. McCain has had the nomination sealed for months and has been laying low gathering money. Obama gets a total pass from the media who apparently see him as the second coming of Christ. Hillary is Hillary and the media is turning on her.

Wait until Sept when McCain and Obama finally have their demons exposed for the country to see.

McCain is obsessed with war. Is that bad enough for you?

Your rhetoric adds nothing to the discussion. Many in this country like McCain, and thats the way it is. Your not going to change any minds on this forum spewing that crap.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87
No surprise at this point in the game. McCain has had the nomination sealed for months and has been laying low gathering money. Obama gets a total pass from the media who apparently see him as the second coming of Christ. Hillary is Hillary and the media is turning on her.

Wait until Sept when McCain and Obama finally have their demons exposed for the country to see.

McCain is obsessed with war. Is that bad enough for you?

Only in your red tinted visors.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Clinton is the leader on what proves to be a weakness for both McCain and Obama -- having a clear plan for solving the country's problems. Forty-nine percent say Clinton does, compared with 41% for Obama

Why didn't you put this in the title?
A man, no plan, a cabal, Obama

You don't understand the concept of a palindrome do you? I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your ignorance, you're a Hillary supporter.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821
How the hell does that dinosaur have that much support? That many idiots want ANOTHER imperialist pig as president?

Simple. The negative campaigning and partisan divide among the Democratic candidates is driving undecided and swing voters towards him. It's not that America wants another imperialist pig, it's just that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, and the Dems are starting to look like they don't have their sh!t together. Plus, the Pubs are buying tons of votes with their bleeding budget deficits.

 

[manowar821]

nm

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp

Clinton is the leader on what proves to be a weakness for both McCain and Obama -- having a clear plan for solving the country's problems. Forty-nine percent say Clinton does, compared with 41% for Obama

Why didn't you put this in the title?
A man, no plan, a cabal, Obama

You don't understand the concept of a palindrome do you? I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your ignorance, you're a Hillary supporter.

I've been wondering about that too. I even Googled it thinking it was something that I as a Canadian simply wouldn't know. I guess senseamp just straight up fails at being witty.

As for why I picked the title I did: Well, it's the title that Gallup themselves gave the post. That and the 23% or 19% difference in perceived honesty/trustworthiness between Senator Clinton and her two rivals is a lot more noteworthy than a 7% or 8% difference in the perception of who's articulated the clearest plan for the future.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821
How the hell does that dinosaur have that much support? That many idiots want ANOTHER imperialist pig as president?

Simple. The negative campaigning and partisan divide among the Democratic candidates is driving undecided and swing voters towards him. It's not that America wants another imperialist pig, it's just that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, and the Dems are starting to look like they don't have their sh!t together. Plus, the Pubs are buying tons of votes with their bleeding budget deficits.

Come on Vic, that rhetoric just wont fly. The bleeding deficits are now being passed by Democrats. And while McCain isnt a bandwagon anti-war drum beater like Hillary. Or against the war like Obama. He isnt exactly an imperialist either.

What I find amusing is in ~04 when McCain was going against team Bush on a few key items the lefties and dems praised him. Now that he is the competition he is an imperialist.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Come on Vic, that rhetoric just wont fly. The bleeding deficits are now being passed by Democrats. And while McCain isnt a bandwagon anti-war drum beater like Hillary. Or against the war like Obama. He isnt exactly an imperialist either.

What I find amusing is in ~04 when McCain was going against team Bush on a few key items the lefties and dems praised him. Now that he is the competition he is an imperialist.

What are they going to do, cut defense funding and have the war factories close down in the middle of an election year? Let's be realistic.
Plus, much of these bleeding deficits -- like the war -- aren't being funded without this Congress' approval. So your rhetoric doesn't fly either.

The rest of what you note is just politics as usual. Friends today, enemies tomorrow. McCain has chosen to ally himself this election cycle with the military-industrial complex so he can achieve his dream of telling his mommy that her boy made it to be President of the United States (line about his mother from an actual campaign speech of his). So maybe he wasn't an imperialist in 2004 (note that I didn't use that word BTW), but he is now that he has joined with those who intend to continue selling off this country to foreign interests in the name of "defense."

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Come on Vic, that rhetoric just wont fly. The bleeding deficits are now being passed by Democrats. And while McCain isnt a bandwagon anti-war drum beater like Hillary. Or against the war like Obama. He isnt exactly an imperialist either.

What I find amusing is in ~04 when McCain was going against team Bush on a few key items the lefties and dems praised him. Now that he is the competition he is an imperialist.

What are they going to do, cut defense funding and have the war factories close down in the middle of an election year? Let's be realistic.
Plus, much of these bleeding deficits -- like the war -- aren't being funded without this Congress' approval. So your rhetoric doesn't fly either.

The rest of what you note is just politics as usual. Friends today, enemies tomorrow. McCain has chosen to ally himself this election cycle with the military-industrial complex so he can achieve his dream of telling his mommy that her boy made it to be President of the United States (line about his mother from an actual campaign speech of his). So maybe he wasn't an imperialist in 2004 (note that I didn't use that word BTW), but he is now that he has joined with those who intend to continue selling off this country to foreign interests in the name of "defense."

Well considering the Iraqi occupations costs ~ 100 billion a year or 1/30th of our current budget. They should be able to find somewhere else they can cut spending. Hell I think we can agree corporate welfare runs into the billions. The number I heard about 75-100 billion a year. That should cover the cost of the occupation if they are so afraid of the big bad anti-war label. But why would they want to do that? Obviously they want to buy votes as much as the repubs have.

The military industrial complex is a buzzword given in a speech by a man leaving office who resided over a military that consumed a much much larger % of our GDP and budget.
In the 1950's it is a valid point. Today with a budget that consumes ~5% of our GDP and ~15% of our budget not so much.

btw this is a little confusing

Plus, much of these bleeding deficits -- like the war -- aren't being funded without this Congress' approval.

I clearly indicated this in my response.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Come on Vic, that rhetoric just wont fly. The bleeding deficits are now being passed by Democrats. And while McCain isnt a bandwagon anti-war drum beater like Hillary. Or against the war like Obama. He isnt exactly an imperialist either.

What I find amusing is in ~04 when McCain was going against team Bush on a few key items the lefties and dems praised him. Now that he is the competition he is an imperialist.

What are they going to do, cut defense funding and have the war factories close down in the middle of an election year? Let's be realistic.
Plus, much of these bleeding deficits -- like the war -- aren't being funded without this Congress' approval. So your rhetoric doesn't fly either.

The rest of what you note is just politics as usual. Friends today, enemies tomorrow. McCain has chosen to ally himself this election cycle with the military-industrial complex so he can achieve his dream of telling his mommy that her boy made it to be President of the United States (line about his mother from an actual campaign speech of his). So maybe he wasn't an imperialist in 2004 (note that I didn't use that word BTW), but he is now that he has joined with those who intend to continue selling off this country to foreign interests in the name of "defense."

Well considering the Iraqi occupations costs ~ 100 billion a year or 1/30th of our current budget. They should be able to find somewhere else they can cut spending. Hell I think we can agree corporate welfare runs into the billions. The number I heard about 75-100 billion a year. That should cover the cost of the occupation if they are so afraid of the big bad anti-war label. But why would they want to do that? Obviously they want to buy votes as much as the repubs have.

The military industrial complex is a buzzword given in a speech by a man leaving office who resided over a military that consumed a much much larger % of our GDP and budget.
In the 1950's it is a valid point. Today with a budget that consumes ~5% of our GDP and ~15% of our budget not so much.

btw this is a little confusing

Plus, much of these bleeding deficits -- like the war -- aren't being funded without this Congress' approval.

I clearly indicated this in my response.

What choice do they have but to approve when the president states that he wouldnt pull the troops out

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Well considering the Iraqi occupations costs ~ 100 billion a year or 1/30th of our current budget. They should be able to find somewhere else they can cut spending. Hell I think we can agree corporate welfare runs into the billions. The number I heard about 75-100 billion a year. That should cover the cost of the occupation if they are so afraid of the big bad anti-war label. But why would they want to do that? Obviously they want to buy votes as much as the repubs have.

The military industrial complex is a buzzword given in a speech by a man leaving office who resided over a military that consumed a much much larger % of our GDP and budget.
In the 1950's it is a valid point. Today with a budget that consumes ~5% of our GDP and ~15% of our budget not so much.

btw this is a little confusing

Plus, much of these bleeding deficits -- like the war -- aren't being funded without this Congress' approval.

I clearly indicated this in my response.

First, your numbers are not accurate. Actual defense costs, including official DoD budget, the war, and the occupation, are totaling up near $1 trillion per year. What you're finding confusing is that you don't realize the accounting tricks the Bush admin is using to cover up these costs, but which the GAO keeps (desperately) trying to warn the public about.

Second, who seriously gives a fsck what % of our GDP it is when it's more than every other nation on earth combined is spending for military, and it is being spent in a manner that benefits other countries more than it benefits our own? Or can you come up with a reason why fighting an ongoing war in Iraq is in American interests? I doubt it.

And finally, why should we "find somewhere" to cut spending on our own nation's infrastructure in order to pay for a military that serves foreign interests? Seriously. You complain about "OMG socialism" out one side of your mouth while supporting this obvious example of it out the other.
I don't like either, but at least I'm not so stupid as to support the version of it that CLEARLY runs contrary to our country's own interests. If we have to borrow from Saudi Arabia and China, at least the Dems will spend that money HERE instead of in Iraq.
Tell ya what... you like this system so well, why don't you borrow money from me to buy me a new car?

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Come on Vic, that rhetoric just wont fly. The bleeding deficits are now being passed by Democrats. And while McCain isnt a bandwagon anti-war drum beater like Hillary. Or against the war like Obama. He isnt exactly an imperialist either.

What I find amusing is in ~04 when McCain was going against team Bush on a few key items the lefties and dems praised him. Now that he is the competition he is an imperialist.

What are they going to do, cut defense funding and have the war factories close down in the middle of an election year? Let's be realistic.
Plus, much of these bleeding deficits -- like the war -- aren't being funded without this Congress' approval. So your rhetoric doesn't fly either.

The rest of what you note is just politics as usual. Friends today, enemies tomorrow. McCain has chosen to ally himself this election cycle with the military-industrial complex so he can achieve his dream of telling his mommy that her boy made it to be President of the United States (line about his mother from an actual campaign speech of his). So maybe he wasn't an imperialist in 2004 (note that I didn't use that word BTW), but he is now that he has joined with those who intend to continue selling off this country to foreign interests in the name of "defense."

Well considering the Iraqi occupations costs ~ 100 billion a year or 1/30th of our current budget. They should be able to find somewhere else they can cut spending. Hell I think we can agree corporate welfare runs into the billions. The number I heard about 75-100 billion a year. That should cover the cost of the occupation if they are so afraid of the big bad anti-war label. But why would they want to do that? Obviously they want to buy votes as much as the repubs have.

The military industrial complex is a buzzword given in a speech by a man leaving office who resided over a military that consumed a much much larger % of our GDP and budget.
In the 1950's it is a valid point. Today with a budget that consumes ~5% of our GDP and ~15% of our budget not so much.

btw this is a little confusing

Plus, much of these bleeding deficits -- like the war -- aren't being funded without this Congress' approval.

I clearly indicated this in my response.

According to this it has cost us 1.3 trillion untill 2008. which is over 200 billion a year...

 

[Starbuck1975]

How the hell does that dinosaur have that much support? That many idiots want ANOTHER imperialist pig as president?

The John McCain that ran for the Republican nomination in 2000 was probably the best qualified candidate of that election year, and given what we know now about the threats and challenges America would face, we probably were better off with McCain at the helm when 9/11 hit.

One step further, McCain often receives praise from Democrats and moderate Republicans for his capacity for bi-partisan dialogue...his reputation was very much one of the Washington maverick.

Perhaps out of political necessity, McCain did cozy up to Bush a little too much for my liking, but he is hardly an imperialist or an extention of the NeoCon ideology.

It will be interesting to see if the John McCain of 2000 will emerge this election year.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821
How the hell does that dinosaur have that much support? That many idiots want ANOTHER imperialist pig as president?

Simple. The negative campaigning and partisan divide among the Democratic candidates is driving undecided and swing voters towards him. It's not that America wants another imperialist pig, it's just that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, and the Dems are starting to look like they don't have their sh!t together. Plus, the Pubs are buying tons of votes with their bleeding budget deficits.

Come on Vic, that rhetoric just wont fly. The bleeding deficits are now being passed by Democrats. And while McCain isnt a bandwagon anti-war drum beater like Hillary. Or against the war like Obama. He isnt exactly an imperialist either.

What I find amusing is in ~04 when McCain was going against team Bush on a few key items the lefties and dems praised him. Now that he is the competition he is an imperialist.

Now now.... Let's set the records straight. I speak for no-one but myself, and I never liked or respected McCain.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Well considering the Iraqi occupations costs ~ 100 billion a year or 1/30th of our current budget. They should be able to find somewhere else they can cut spending. Hell I think we can agree corporate welfare runs into the billions. The number I heard about 75-100 billion a year. That should cover the cost of the occupation if they are so afraid of the big bad anti-war label. But why would they want to do that? Obviously they want to buy votes as much as the repubs have.

The military industrial complex is a buzzword given in a speech by a man leaving office who resided over a military that consumed a much much larger % of our GDP and budget.
In the 1950's it is a valid point. Today with a budget that consumes ~5% of our GDP and ~15% of our budget not so much.

btw this is a little confusing

Plus, much of these bleeding deficits -- like the war -- aren't being funded without this Congress' approval.

I clearly indicated this in my response.

First, your numbers are not accurate. Actual defense costs, including official DoD budget, the war, and the occupation, are totaling up near $1 trillion per year. What you're finding confusing is that you don't realize the accounting tricks the Bush admin is using to cover up these costs, but which the GAO keeps (desperately) trying to warn the public about.

Fair enough shoot me a link. The truer costs according to the washington post below is 200 billion a year. Ill agree on that. Which cuts it to 1/15th of our bloated federal budget.

Second, who seriously gives a fsck what % of our GDP it is when it's more than every other nation on earth combined is spending for military, and it is being spent in a manner that benefits other countries more than it benefits our own? Or can you come up with a reason why fighting an ongoing war in Iraq is in American interests? I doubt it.

In the context of what Eisenhower was warning against I think it has everything to do with it. Even in a time of war our military is consuming less as a % of our economy and budget than it did in a time of peace during the mid to late 1950's.

And where in my response was I defending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Anytime we want to pull out of those countries I am in favor of it. I agree at this point we are just twiddling our thumbs waiting on the Iraqi's while spending lots of cash and wasting valueable hardworking manpower.

And finally, why should we "find somewhere" to cut spending on our own nation's infrastructure in order to pay for a military that serves foreign interests?

Hey on this you wont get an argument from me. Clearly one of the reasons why we as a nation outspend the entire world is we are footing the bill of many nations defense. We cut back our military and let these countries defend themselves. We should see a rise in military budgets across the board.

I don't like either, but at least I'm not so stupid as to support the version of it that CLEARLY runs contrary to our country's own interests. If we have to borrow from Saudi Arabia and China, at least the Dems will spend that money HERE instead of in Iraq.
Tell ya what... you like this system so well, why don't you borrow money from me to buy me a new car?

Ahh come on Vic, dont settle. I havent seen you settle for one side doing the wrong thing because you dont like the other side. Sounds to me like you are doing the old "two wrongs make a right" routine which you so hate

And fyi I am not happy with the system in the least. And nowhere have I indicated that I am.

 

[Vic]

I'm not settling. I'm just saying that if I am forced (as I am) to choose between spending our tax dollars here in our country or elsewhere, then I choose here. I hate to pull a Harvey, but yeah I do see the Iraq war as treasonous. We have been sold down the river, and brainwashed into believing that it was the patriotic and "American" thing to do. The right has been so flipped out about "OMG socialism" and how we're gonna end up like Europe like they've refused to recognize that we have been subsidizing Europe (and much of the rest of the world) all along. Paying (indirectly) for their socialism while we get nothing but debt to pass on to our grandchildren's grandchildren. No matter what you might think of the Dems, I don't see how you can possibly consider supporting the continuation of those policies. FFS, if we have to do that, we could at least be building something here.
So no, I'm not settling. I'm pissed.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm not settling. I'm just saying that if I am forced (as I am) to choose between spending our tax dollars here in our country or elsewhere, then I choose here. I hate to pull a Harvey, but yeah I do see the Iraq war as treasonous. We have been sold down the river, and brainwashed into believing that it was the patriotic and "American" thing to do. The right has been so flipped out about "OMG socialism" and how we're gonna end up like Europe like they've refused to recognize that we have been subsidizing Europe (and much of the rest of the world) all along. Paying (indirectly) for their socialism while we get nothing but debt to pass on to our grandchildren's grandchildren. No matter what you might think of the Dems, I don't see how you can possibly consider supporting the continuation of those policies. FFS, if we have to do that, we could at least be building something here.
So no, I'm not settling. I'm pissed.

Well this cycle is a dud for my views. McCain isnt my first choice. But the way I see it the Dems will retain both chambers and thus keep him in line if he decides to morph into Darth Vader and try to expand the empire. If he blows chunks he is out in 4 years. Either way the Dems will hold the power for crafting legislation and budgets. Let them fight it out and hopefully contain the size of our govt.

I like Obama's approach. I am just not sold on what he is pushing. Seems like a lot of unanswered questions and he will have a democratic congress to rubber stamp whatever he wants to push through.