In 2000, Arianna Huffington wrote a very persuasive book called How to Overthrow the Government which denounced the seeming decline in principled discussion and the commodification of leadership. She especially had a bone to pick with polls and, to she, the abundant influence they garnered with (but not exclusively with) the Clinton Administration. She wrote:

[T]he media remain in thrall to polls' power of prediction. Lengthy articles are written about such horse-race polls, which are then circulated by handlers and fund-raisers to convince donors and PACs to more money and more endorsements, fewer resources left over for rival candidates, more positive snapshots by the pollsters, and so on, and so on.

...

Personally, when I read poll results, I feel more uninformed with every number. If "disenlightenment" were a word, it would describe my poll-induced state. Maybe a warning label should accompany polling results: "Contemplating this data [sic] for too long may actually kill brain cells and impair your ability to think critically. Read at your own risk." (81, 86. "The Public Opinion Racket," How to Overthrow the Government, 1st ed. pbk.)

But times have changed and with them, Arianna has conveniently forgotten her principled stand. As the chief editor and founder of the Huffington Post, she seems to have no qualms about syndicating AP and other news stories about the latest Democratic and Republican primary polls; one must suppose she no longer cares as much about how unfair they are to independent candidates. But then it's not just other people's thoughts on "disenlightening" data that she provides to her readers. In her own columns, she has continually cited polls as evidence of the state of public affairs, popular opinion and on what politicians should focus: for starters see here, here, here,    here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Oh wait a sec, here's one she doesn't like.  Therefore, it's "one more example of why the results of political polls should be consigned to the same section of newspapers as the comics, Sudoku, and the daily horoscope, and not used as the basis for top-of-the-fold front page stories -- and, even worse, national policy."

(On the other hand, she finds that these ones are well-suited to national policy: here, here, here, here, and here.)

So then how disingenuous is it to on the one hand decry polls which threaten to "turn political leaders into slavish followers of the most shallow reading of the electorate's whims and wishes" only to turn around and cite them ceaselessly as a reason for why Washington isn't listening to America on ____?

In short, polls are disgusting. How dare they substitute the judgment of leaders whose job it is to listen to Arianna Huffington's selective interpretation of what the majority of Americans, Iraqis, et al think and need. That's her right. She can proclaim to be above polls whilst shoveling ones she's pre-approved into the consciousness of the progressive movement. On the Huffington Post, doublethink is alive and well.