Some columnists would scrap a paragraph that's been undercut by the latest installment of a poll they're citing. Not Kristol. He writes today:
In a New York Times/CBS News poll in late February, Obama was defeating John McCain 50 to 38. Two months later, the Times/CBS poll had McCain and Obama tied. The poll that came out yesterday showed Obama reopening a lead over McCain — but clearly over this period a vulnerability for Obama was exposed.
So how big was that lead Obama reopened in the latest Times/CBS poll? 51 to 40--almost exactly where it stood in February.
Now, it's hard to deny that Obama's become more vulnerable over the last few months. I'm just confused as to why anyone making this point would cite a poll showing the opposite.