Few Pollsters Get High Marks in ’08 Presidential Races

By Stuart Rothenberg

Everyone seems to conduct polls these days, but not everyone conducts good ones. That’s the message I drew after reviewing dozens of presidential polls conducted from Iowa through Indiana and North Carolina.

It’s beyond time for those of us who write about politics to evaluate the seemingly endless number of polls conducted in the race for the White House. A few thoughtful souls monitor and write about polls on a regular basis, including ABC News’ Gary Langer and Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com, a wonderful Web site that everyone should read regularly. Unfortunately, too many people mindlessly accept any and all numbers, treating them as if they are equally accurate.

I did not examine every poll conducted in every state. Instead, I looked at most of the high-profile contests, especially where a considerable number of different polls were available on RealClearPolitics.com (from which I gathered the numbers that follow). I stopped looking at GOP primaries after it became clear that Arizona Sen. John McCain would be his party’s nominee.

I also looked at the so-called RealClearPolitics average in each state, which is available from the Web site with the same name.

Ultimately, I focused on five different polls that have received considerable attention: American Research Group, Rasmussen Reports, the Reuters/Zogby/C-SPAN poll, SurveyUSA and the Suffolk University poll.

The worst-performing poll has been Suffolk.

Suffolk University’s pre-primary survey correctly predicted the winner in only five of nine contests. It was wrong in both New Hampshire primaries, the California Democratic primary and, incredibly, the Democratic primary in Massachusetts, the state where the university is located.

The other five contests in which Suffolk polled, the results were quite good, within a couple of points of the actual results. But in polling, being right about half the time isn’t a record to be proud of.

Rasmussen, Reuters/Zogby/C-SPAN and ARG produced better results — but not by much. Each firm picked the winner a little under two-thirds of the time.

ARG correctly picked the winner in seven contests but blew four. It missed the Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic contests badly (everyone botched New Hampshire), missed the South Carolina Republican contest badly and picked the wrong winner in the Michigan GOP race.

Rasmussen got 11 primaries right and six wrong (the Democratic races in New Hampshire, California, Missouri and Texas, and the GOP primaries in California and Alabama), a mediocre record at best. Even more disconcerting, in five of the primaries that Rasmussen got “right,” the firm was embarrassingly far off from the actual vote.

For example, while Rasmussen’s last poll in Massachusetts had Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) up by 6 points, she actually won by more than 15 points. The firm had Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) up by 4 in Wisconsin; he went on to win Wisconsin by more than 17 points.

The Reuters/Zogby/C-SPAN’s overall results mirror Rasmussen’s. Zogby’s California Republican and Democratic polls were an embarrassment. The firm was way off in the Granite State Democratic race, but it wasn’t alone. The firm’s Ohio poll was bad (showing a tie while Clinton won by a comfortable 10 points), and it picked the wrong winner in the Michigan GOP and Indiana Democratic contests.

But unlike Rasmussen, when Zogby got the right winner, the firm usually came pretty close to the winner’s margin, as in North Carolina on Tuesday.

The best pollster, by a wide margin, was SurveyUSA, which coincidentally has conducted some House and Senate race polls for this newspaper.

I’ll admit to not being a fan of SurveyUSA’s automated polling, and some of the firm’s past results have struck me as simply wrong. But in examining presidential primary polling, SurveyUSA stands well above its competition.

SurveyUSA called 11 of 14 races correctly, missing the Missouri Democratic primary badly and picking the wrong winner in two close races, the GOP contest in Alabama and the Democratic primary in Texas. The firm did not poll in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, which was missed by every major polling firm.

Until this week, SurveyUSA could boast that not only did it pick the winners, it also forecast the margin of victory. The poll was spot on in the South Carolina and Missouri GOP races and in the California and Ohio Democratic contests, for example.

This week, however, SurveyUSA got the winners in the two Democratic primaries but was far off in predicting the Clinton margin in Indiana and the Obama margin in North Carolina.

Finally, RealClearPolitics’ own “RCP average,” which averages a handful of recent polls, improved on the individual polls that I checked. The average got only four of 21 contests “wrong”: Democratic primaries in New Hampshire, California and Missouri, as well as the GOP primary in Alabama. But in some state contests, the RCP average was way off, including in Massachusetts, Georgia and Wisconsin.

Polling is a tricky business, and even the methodologically most rigorous firms get things wrong. That’s why every poll comes with a statistical margin of error.

On the other hand, I have to ask why pollsters with such dubious track records continue to get as much attention as they do. “Given how wrong some of these firms have been,” one partisan pollster told me recently, “they wouldn’t be rehired next time if they worked for a candidate.”

Of course, I know how they exist and why they are hired and rehired. Most of what is written or aired on TV is for mere amusement, and people in charge of Web sites, hosting TV programs or booking guests don’t know much about politics or methodology, or they don’t care about those things. For them, it’s about the sizzle, not the steak — even if the steak isn’t worth eating.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 8, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

In Iowa, Will Edwards Divide and Conquer?

By Stuart Rothenberg

While the Democratic race has often, and quite accurately, been described as a choice between change (Barack Obama and John Edwards) and experience (Hillary Rodham Clinton), it has, in the final days before Iowa, become another kind of choice as well.

Democrats must decide whether they want a candidate who is angry and confrontational, and who sees those favoring compromise as traitors (Edwards), or a candidate who presents himself as a uniter (Obama), or a candidate who presents herself as someone who understands the ways of Washington and can get things done (Clinton).

While Clinton and Obama both acknowledge the importance of working with various interests, including Capitol Hill Republicans and the business community, to come up with solutions to key problems, Edwards sounds more and more like the neighborhood bully who plans to dictate what is to be done.

The former North Carolina senator is running a classic populist campaign that would have made William Jennings Bryan (or Ralph Nader) proud. Everything is Corporate America’s fault. But he’s also portraying himself as fighting for the middle class and able to appeal to swing voters and even Republicans in a general election.

Edwards certainly would dispute that there is an inherent contradiction between his populist rhetoric and his alleged middle class appeal. But his approach to problems is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans.

For months, observers have noted that Americans are tired of the polarization and gridlock that has defined Washington, D.C. at least since 1994 (except for a brief period following September 11th). But if Iowa Democrats choose Edwards, they are choosing anger, confrontation and class warfare. In a sense, they are displaying buyer’s remorse (from 2004) and choosing a more attractive, charismatic Howard Dean-like candidate this time.

Ironically, Edwards criticized Dean for being too angry in 2004, yet this time the former North Carolina Democrat has adopted Dean’s confrontational style.

Edwards portrays himself as a fighter for the middle class, but his message is decidedly working class and left. The North Carolina Democrat’s message seems well-suited for 1933 or 1934, but not nearly as ideal for 2008. Yet, Iowa Democrats, like many of their partisan colleagues around the country, are so angry at President George W. Bush that they might be willing to give voice to their anger by voting for Edwards at the caucuses.

Four years ago, angry anti-war candidate Dean drew 18 percent of caucus-goers, while populist Dick Gephardt drew another 11 percent. Edwards, himself, attracted 32 percent of 2004 Iowa Democratic caucus attendees.

But let’s be very clear: Given the North Carolina Democrat’s rhetoric and agenda, an Edwards Presidency would likely rip the nation apart – even further apart than Bush has torn it.

On Capitol Hill, Edwards’s “us versus them” rhetoric and legislative agenda would almost certainly make an already bitter mood even worse. He would in the blink of an eye unify the GOP and open up divisions in his own party’s ranks. Congressional Republicans would circle the wagons in an effort to stop Edwards’s agenda.

Would Clinton or Obama fare better in the nation’s capital? It’s hard to tell, but the answer probably is “yes.”

Obama surely wouldn’t arouse the immediate resentment and opposition that Edwards would, giving the Illinois senator a far better chance of accomplishing important things during the first two years of his term.

And while many Republicans around the country revile anyone named Clinton, the New York Senator might not face as much hostility as some assume from Capitol Hill Republicans. After all, Senator Clinton has worked well with her colleagues from both parties, and she knows better than anyone how important it is to build successful bipartisan coalitions on Capitol Hill.

Just as important, a President Edwards might well find that his view of the American economy is built on sand. For while Edwards bashes corporate America and “them,” this nation’s economy depends on the success of both small business and big business.

Scare the stuffing out of Corporate America and watch the stock market tumble. That’s certain to make retirement funds – including those owned by labor unions and “working families” – happy, right? Stick it to Wal-Mart, and their 1.8 million employees are at risk. Beat up on IBM, and you are beating up on their 330,000 employees. Take a pound of flesh from General Electric, Citigroup, Home Depot and United Technologies, and you’ve put the squeeze on just under 1.2 million employees.

So, Iowa Democrats are faced with much more than a choice of change versus readiness for the job. They will be deciding what kind of party and what kind of country they want. And they will be making an important statement about the tone they want in Washington, D.C.

The question facing Iowa Democrats is whether they want to send a message of frustration, or whether they place a higher priority on getting things accomplished in 2009. Edwards’s bet is that, unlike 2004, they’ll choose anger and confrontation.

This column also appeared on RealClearPolitics on December 31, 2007.

Republican Race Twists & Turns Even Before Bhutto Assassination

By Stuart Rothenberg

Even before the death of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on Thursday, there were signs of continued churning in the GOP race, with Arizona Senator John McCain pulling even with and ahead of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, according to knowledgeable observers.

In Iowa, the Republican contest continues to be a two-man race, with Romney so far retaining considerable strength against former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. In fact, in spite of a recent Los Angeles Times poll showing Huckabee with a 14-point lead over Romney, there is some reason to believe that Romney has closed that gap and that the GOP contest in the Iowa caucuses is much closer than the Times poll suggests.

While McCain is not yet in the mix in Iowa and shows few signs of joining Huckabee and Romney in the GOP top tier in the state, he could well finish a surprisingly strong third in the caucuses, which could get him positive media attention and boost him in New Hampshire.

For Giuliani, the Arizonan's growing strength is a significant problem. Fourth-place finishes for Giuliani in the first two contests, along with a resurgent McCain, could make McCain both more appealing to moderates and more likely to emerge as the consensus choice of conservatives as the race moves forward. That would make it much more difficult for the New Yorker to jump-start his campaign and almost impossible for him to pull away on February 5th, as he hopes to do.

The Republican races in Iowa and New Hampshire remain very fluid. But it now seems quite clear that reports of John McCain's political demise were far too premature.

The Bhutto assassination is likely to have an effect on both parties' nomination fights by elevating foreign policy and international concerns.

On the GOP side, McCain and Giuliani are likely to benefit, with Romney and Huckabee having a harder time to convince late deciders of their ability to handle an international crisis. Huckabee is in the weakest position by far, since his "good old boy" appeal becomes a weakness rather than a strength.

Democratic Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the obvious beneficiary on the Democratic side, since neither Illinois Senator Barack Obama nor former Senator John Edwards have the credentials or stature to match Clinton's. Still, it is far from certain whether the news from Pakistan will have a profound impact on the Democratic contest.

For many months, I argued that the focus on day to day developments and meaningless national polls was unwise and reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the Iowa and New Hampshire decision-making process. Only in recent weeks have Republican and Democratic caucus attendees and primary voters been focusing on choosing a president - the same thing that happened in the 2004 Democratic race.

Given the difficulty in predicting turnout, particularly in Iowa, it's wise for pundits, journalists, talking heads and real people to spend their time watching the developments, including the swings in momentum, rather than in mindlessly picking winners and losers. Both nominations currently are up for grabs.

This column also appeared on RealClearPolitics on December 28, 2007.

Status-Quo on Tuesday Is Good News for GOP

By Stuart Rothenberg

Republicans got some good news Tuesday when they won special elections in Ohio and Virginia to retain two Congressional seats that became open upon the death of sitting GOP U.S. House members.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee didn’t seriously contest Virginia’s open 1st District, but the DCCC and the National Republican Congressional Committee ended up pouring considerable resources into Ohio’s 5th C.D.

Republicans have reason to feel good about holding both seats, particularly given the nasty GOP primary in Ohio 5 and the party’s continued problems in the Buckeye State.

Ohio Democrat Robin Weirauch didn’t do any better than she did last year even though the seat was open, she was running for the third time, and Democrats tried to tie Republican nominee Bob Latta to discredited former Ohio Republican officeholders.

GOP strategists were successful in turning out Republican voters, some of whom are less than enthusiastic about the President. In other words, the NRCC still knows how to motivate the party faithful.

Democrats can take pleasure that they forced Republicans to spend heavily to defend a solidly Republican district. Part of the Democrats’ 2008 House strategy obviously is to force the NRCC to play in as many districts as possible, bleeding the under-financed GOP dry and, possibly, sneaking off with a few extra seats next fall.

The NRCC was able to hold the Ohio district, in part, by outspending the DCCC. It will not be able to do that very often next year. But before you give the DCCC a trophy for forcing the NRCC to spend money on the race, remember that the Democrats just tossed away $250,000 in Ohio 5 and have nothing to show for it.

Unfortunately, the NRCC’s post-election press release once again reads far too much into the results in Virginia and Ohio.

“The results of the special elections…are further confirmation of a shifting political environment, an electorate desperate for change in Washington, and a wide-open congressional playing field,” asserts the NRCC in its release.

First, let’s deal with - and dismiss - the easiest point, that the results demonstrate that voters want change. If anything, the results argue against change, since both districts are reliably Republican and the GOP nominees held the seats.

National polls certainly show that voters want change, and voters in Ohio’s 5th District and Virginia’s 1st C.D. may want change, as well. But the election results don’t show that.

Does the NRCC want people to believe that Democratic victories would have been a sign that voters don’t want change? That would not be a credible argument.

The other two NRCC points are more reasonable, but that isn’t saying a lot since the first one was so absurd.

In arguing that there is “a wide open congressional playing field,” the NRCC may mean that there are lots of seats in play this cycle. There may, in fact, be more competitive seats this cycle than last, but Tuesday’s two special elections don’t prove that.

Given that GOP special election nominees held reliably Republican seats, all the results prove is that Democrats will have a hard time winning solidly Republican districts next year. That suggests that Democrats aren’t likely to gain another 30 or 40 seats in 2008, hardly an earth-shattering conclusion.

Has the landscape changed from 2006? Possibly, since Democratic nominee Weirauch didn’t come all that close to upsetting Republican Latta. But let’s not go overboard. All we can say right now is that there isn’t a Democratic tsunami in Ohio, as some Republicans had worried.

The ’08 landscape may indeed be very different from the landscape in ’06, but the specials don’t offer compelling evidence either way.

The bottom line? Some good news for both parties �" and a whole lot of relief at the NRCC. Given the DCCC’s effort to swipe a Republican seat in a special election, as well as the damage and bad press a Republican defeat would have brought, the day was an especially good one for Republicans.

This story also appeared on RealClearPolitics on December 12, 2007.

It's Time for Them to Go

By Stuart Rothenberg

Each party has now had at least a handful of debates consisting all of the "credible" candidates, which means that the sponsors have been "fair" and given exposure to everyone. Now it's time to be fair to voters, which means shrinking the number of participants in the next flurry of "debates."

In other words, it's time for them - Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinch and Mike Gravel - to go. Go to Iowa. Go to New Hampshire. Go somewhere. But get them off the stage with the credible candidates.

We can all differ on exactly where to draw the line, but let's at least draw one.

You want to set an artificial percentage of support in national polls or Iowa and New Hampshire surveys? Fine. Just do it. You prefer excluding House members (since a sitting House member hasn't won a Presidential election in more than a century) and candidates who haven't been in office for a decade? Ok.

I'm not saying that it's time to winnow the debate fields down to the top tier candidates on either side. No, I wouldn't exclude Senators McCain, Brownback, Biden and Dodd or former Governor Huckabee. True, they are long-shots in the Presidential race, but there is a huge difference between them and the group above that I mentioned - the no shots.

The long shots have raised money, put together experienced campaign teams and have at least some chance of being nominated. They certainly deserve more time on the national stage, while the Tancredo's and Kucinich's of the world have had their moment to make their cases and push their issues.

Yes, I know. Excluding candidates from forums and debates will generate a barrage of complaints from those who are excluded and from critics of "the establishment." They'll moan and groan that the media (or corporate America) is silencing them, denying the platform that they need to be heard. Of course they can't win if the media "silences" them, they'll say. "It's "censorship!" they'll scream.

Oh baloney. You could give Ron Paul and Mike Gravel an hour of free TV time from now until Christmas and they still wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated by their respective parties.

Right now, Hunter, Tancredo and Paul together take up more than 35 percent of the time in a GOP debate (assuming participants get roughly equal amounts of time to answer questions). That's valuable time that the credible candidates don't get.

The point of debates, after all, is to help voters decide who they favor for President, not to give everyone who wants to be President exposure.

In the Democratic debates, Gravel and Kucinich together take about one-quarter of the time. That time could be better used to give the other hopefuls - one of whom will be the Democratic nominee for President - to answer questions.

Eliminating the five hopefuls from the upcoming debates might cost David Letterman a joke or two about Dennis Kucinich's wife, but that's about it.

But would excluding a handful of hopefuls at this point, months before the actual delegate selection begins, be "fair?"

Absolutely. Debate hosts invariably weed out candidates as not credible, so it's not a matter of whether to limit participants but how to do so. This year, Republican Presidential candidate John Cox, who finished fifth in an Illinois GOP primary for Congress in 2000 and third in his party's 2002 Illinois Senate primary, hasn't been invited to debates. And he shouldn't be, since he has no chance of winning.

So let's stop the charade. The broadcast and cable TV networks have given their platforms to Gravel and Paul and Hunter. Now it's time to limit participation in major events to candidates who have at least some chance of being nominated for President.

The Iowa caucuses are coming up quickly. It's time to give more time, and more scrutiny, to the credible candidates, and the best way to do that is to exclude the "no chance" hopefuls from future debates.

This column first appeared on RealClearPolitics on August 10, 2007.

Are Democrats Kidding that Iraq Vote Was 'Bipartisan?'

By Stuart Rothenberg

Moments after the House voted against President Bush's additional deployment of troops to Iraq - the so-called surge, if you are for it or trying to be neutral, or the so-called escalation, if you are opposed to it - House Democrats sent out a flurry of e-mails crowing about the "bipartisan" support for it.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel's release was titled, "Emanuel Statement on Bipartisan Approval of Iraq Resolution," while House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's was headlined an only slightly different, "Bipartisan Majority in U.S. House Votes Against the President's Plan to Escalate the War in Iraq."

On the House floor, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, staying true to her party's talking points, also referred to the resolution as "bipartisan."

In fact, support for the Iraq resolution was bipartisan only in the technical sense that the vote on the resolution was not completely along party lines. But it was awfully close to that, and referring to the final vote as bipartisan has more to do with Democratic strategy and nervousness than reality.

Only 17 Republicans - or 8.4% of GOP House members - joined 225 Democrats in voting for the resolution, while over 90% of Republicans opposed passage of the resolution. Republicans constituted just 7% of the 242 House members who supported the resolution. Only two House Democrats voted with 185 Republicans against the resolution.

Democrats had enough votes to pass the resolution without any GOP support, and given national polls showing widespread dissatisfaction with the Bush policy, just 17 Republican votes for the resolution is stunningly small, and little or no indication of a bipartisan consensus.

Clearly, the vote on the resolution was very much partisan, though with a handful of defections. We can argue over what would constitute a truly bipartisan vote, but 92% of Republicans voting against something and 99% of Democrats voting for it surely doesn't come close to passing the threshold. By insisting, whether in a press release, in statements on the floor or in interviews after the fact, that the vote was bipartisan, Democratic leaders look silly.

But if the vote was overwhelmingly partisan, why don't Democrats just say so? What's the big deal?

The likely answer is that Democrats are trying so hard to avoid allowing Republicans to label their criticism as merely partisan that they won't even acknowledge the obvious. Instead, they are looking for any opportunity to portray their opposition to the President's policies as part of the nation's dissatisfaction with the administration's Iraq policy.

While that's understandable - one of the few ways Democrats could screw up during the next year and a half would be to appear to be basing their opposition on possible political gain and a petty desire to punish Bush politically - there is no indication that Democrats have been too aggressive in criticizing the President or his policies so far.

In fact, a partisan division over the war probably would help Democrats by further damaging the Republicans between now and next year's Presidential election. After all, if it isn't merely President Bush, but also his entire party, that supports the war and ignores public opinion, Democrats would seem to benefit.

Obviously there are a handful of high profile Republicans who have opposed the Bush policy in Iraq for a considerable time - most notably Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska in the Senate and Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina in the House - and a number of GOP members of Congress have over the past couple of months sounded increasingly critical of Bush policies.

But the House vote demonstrates that Republicans still have not left the President's ship, even though it clearly seems to be sinking, and Democrats ought not be so wedded to their talking points' emphasis on bipartisan opposition to the war that they refer to a "bipartisan resolution" that clearly was nothing of the sort.

This article first appeared on RealClearPolitics on February 20, 2007.

The Ever-'Present' Obama

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Finally and officially, Barack Obama is running for president. His symbolic announcement, in the Land of Lincoln, called for a new era in politics. Obama downplayed his thin federal experience while championing his record on the state and local level, and he talked about the need to change Washington, set priorities, and "make hard choices."

"What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions," Obama said in his announcement speech. But a closer look at the presidential candidate's record in the Illinois Legislature reveals something seemingly contradictory: a number of occasions when Obama avoided making hard choices.

While some conservatives and Republicans surely will harp on what they call his "liberal record," highlighting applicable votes to support their case, it's Obama's history of voting "present" in Springfield - even on some of the most controversial and politically explosive issues of the day - that raises questions that he will need to answer. Voting "present" is one of three options in the Illinois Legislature (along with "yes" and "no"), but it's almost never an option for the occupant of the Oval Office.

We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass.

Some of these bills may have been "bad." They may have included poison pills or been poorly written, making it impossible for Obama to support them. They may have even been unconstitutional. When I asked the Obama campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points.

But even if that were the case, it doesn't explain his votes. The state legislator had an easy solution if the bills were unacceptable to him: he could have voted against them and explained his reasoning.

Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose. Of course, Obama isn't the first or only Illinois state senator to vote "present," but he is the only one running for President of the United States.

While these votes occurred while Obama and the Democrats were in the minority in the Illinois Senate, in the Audacity of Hope (page 130), Obama explained that even as a legislator in the minority, "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just."

Obama's "present" record could hurt him in two very different ways in his bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination and, ultimately, the White House. On one hand, those votes could anger some Democrats, even liberals, because he did not take a strong enough stand on their issues. On the other hand, his votes could simply be portrayed by adversaries as a failure of leadership for not being willing to make a tough decision and stick by it.

Obama is one of the most dynamic and captivating figures in American politics at this time, and he has put together an excellent campaign team. He clearly is a factor in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

But as Democrats - and Americans - are searching for their next leader, the Illinois senator's record, and not just his rhetoric, will be examined under a microscope. As president, Obama will be faced with countless difficult decisions on numerous gray issues, and voting "present" will not be an option. He will need to explain those "present" votes as a member of the Illinois Legislature if he hopes to become America's commander-in-chief.

This article first appeared on RealClearPolitics on February 13, 2007 and later on the Wall Street Journal.com Editorial Page on February 14, 2007.