I want to speak carefully here. It would be easy to fall into the trap of believing that, because polling can be done badly and dishonestly, it naturally follows that all polls are bad and dishonest. It would be equally easy to cherry-pick polls, and say that, since this or that poll bears out my personal opinion, it must, then, be a good poll. I am honestly trying to avoid either pitfall here.
In 1995, the newly-elected Republican Congress spoke of cutting funding for PBS. In response, PBS conducted its own poll (which should have raised a red flag right off the bat). The question put to respondents was, "If funding for PBS were cut, who would suffer more - children or adults?" Do you see the self-serving, loaded nature of that question - how it attempts to establish as a given that suffering will take place - why I use this as an example of a "bad polll"?
Now, I invite you to look over the Zogby poll posted in Avatar's link. I wonder if you'd agree with me that this is a genuine attempt to learn the views of the respondent, regarding a good-faith question, put in all honestly, with no shady manipulation of the facts. My personal feelings on the issue are irrelevant; this is what I would consider a "good poll".
We must become more careful consumers of information - for our own sakes. When we see a poll, we should ask, "Who's conducting this thing? What results would THEY like to see from it? What might they have done to 'help' me see it their way?" One of the most chilling comments I've ever read appeared in one of Kathianne's links here. A pollster said, "You tell me how you want the poll to come out, and I'll write the questions". Polls aren't bad by definition, but we should always deduce their meanings carefully.
posted results here, #247. There's more info that follows in a couple of posts, regarding polls and how to read them. 
