Report: Hillary Is Not "Unelectable," And The Polling Data Prove It

Comments (115)

Paula wrote on August 27, 2007 4:07 PM:

Greg, Thank you so much for posting this. I always appreciate your efforts to dissect the often-wrong CW about our candidates, whether Hillary, Obama or someone else.

Looking for Home wrote on August 27, 2007 4:07 PM:

"The charge is thrown around with a startling degree of recklessness by our pundits, who more or less base this assessment on little more than the fact that someone else said this before they did."

Oh my God Greg, put on the armor baby this is going to get rough!

Thank goodness. There can at least (hopefully) be a more thoughtful debate on this now.

Greg wrote on August 27, 2007 4:16 PM:

thanks, all...I really am stunned by the mindlessness of pundit repetition of this, based on literally nothing at all...

elrapierwit wrote on August 27, 2007 4:20 PM:

I had always assumed it had more to do with how well positioned each candidate is to effectively compete in the general election. Such an analysis would have to include some factor relating to the "negatives" for each candidate because these offer the targets that their opponent will use to tear them down during the campaign.
By defining "electability" in terms of how people would vote at the current time - before the campaign has underscored the negatives and/or the candidates have had a chance to respond to them - your analysis does not take the percieved negatives into account.

In this regard, I think Clinton and Edwards offer significantly more "electability" issues than does Obama. Thus far, Obama's only "negative" is inexperience, and he has already begun to respond to those criticisms.

Rssrai wrote on August 27, 2007 4:27 PM:

Edwards does the best against all the repugs and by bigger margins in the latest Rasmuessen polls. I don't know if Hillary is unelectable or not, but she does have the highest negatives and that is saying a lot.

Fred M. wrote on August 27, 2007 4:27 PM:

I am a lifelong Democrat and I don't think I would be able to pull the lever for Hillary.

I should say I expect her to be nominated, however, because the Dems seem to always manage to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to presidential politics ...

Greg wrote on August 27, 2007 4:28 PM:

well, a counter argument to that is that the specifics of Hillary's negatives are vastly better known to the electorate than those of obama...it's hard to imagine just what the gop could say that's new enough to drive up her negatives significantly higher than they already are. That's not to say that it can't be done, just that of all the candidates, Hillary has already withstood about as comprehensive a barrage of slime as can be imagined...

timnlisa1 wrote on August 27, 2007 4:34 PM:

I have always thought that no matter the dem candidate, they would have a good chance to win next year because Dem base is very psyched to get out and vote while the GOP base really isn't. My concern is everybody downstream. Hillary brings such hatred I really think it effects (i.e. increases) the GOP turnout to the point that a lot of the close state and local elections, especially in the south, swing to the GOP. I think Hillary at the top of the ticket, while not keeping her out of office, would effect to some degree, congressional as well as state and local dems.

otghand wrote on August 27, 2007 4:34 PM:

My problem with Hillary Clinton is that I have no idea what her core principals are, or if they even exist beyond "What is in it for me?". My impression of her over the years is that she will say anything, do anything, in pursuit of her goals, and that her goals are based exclusively on personal interest.

mp wrote on August 27, 2007 4:40 PM:

I will support Hillary if she wins the nomination. However, it seems to me that the GOP's best shot at mobilizing their base for the 2008 election will come if Hillary wins the nomination. She embodies the ultimate wedge issue for them. She won't get my vote in the primaries for this reason.

Judy L'Hearux wrote on August 27, 2007 4:41 PM:

Hillary has a bill on the fast track in Congress to set up a commission to study the nation's infrastructure.

She is getting something done while Obama, Edwards, etc., are making promises.

While people are arguing about electiblility, likeability, credibility - she is moving this nation into a better future.

We are already better off for her running for President. Go Hillary!

LJD wrote on August 27, 2007 4:42 PM:

This is all well and good, but none of this addresses the core problem with these polls; that they only question "generic" registered voters. This is the same methodology that showed Dems winning in races all across the country and caused Dems to shoot themselves in the feet in 2000, 2002, and 2004. It does not address the fact that the Dems are utterly impotent when it comes to GOTV, and that many of these mythical left-leaning registered voters never bother to put down the bong long enough to vote.

The only reason we did so well in 2006 was because Iraq (and other) frustrations got Dems to vote and kept GOPers home. And nothing will bring the GOPers to the polls in record numbers like a Hillary Clinton candidacy. Even the Dems' own internal polling two weeks ago showed that her candidacy would threaten our tenuous hold on Dem majorities in both houses by GOTV for the GOP.

hwc wrote on August 27, 2007 4:49 PM:

On the comment about Obama's only negative being inexperience, that's like the famous quesiton, "so Mrs. Lincoln, other than that, how did you enjoy the play?" The most fundamental negative that has to be overcome by any candidate is the "commander-in-chief" threshold.

BTW, I posted a diary about one of the major demographics driving Democratic votes in general and, Clinton votes specifically: unmarried, divorced, and widowed women:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/27/0359/99654

The demographic data sheds a lot of light on why Clinton's poll numbers are so strong, even in states were CW may not expect it.

lorelynn wrote on August 27, 2007 4:49 PM:

Conventional wisdom cannot be dismantled until reality does so forcefully - as this thread so aptly demonstates. Assuming that most of these posters are Dems, you would think, whether they support her or not, that this would be good news - considering that she is frontrunner.

"There's something goin' on here and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?"

I think it should have been her campaign song.

Joseph Thompson wrote on August 27, 2007 4:51 PM:

I have _never_ heard people say, "I could _never_ vote for !" In the numbers they seem to say it about Hillary. I heard a fellow worker say it just this morning. And, if I'm any judge of people, he said it with utter conviction. Anecdotal? Sure. But hearing that declaration again and again, from a surprisingly wide range of voters, I keep asking myself why _any_ political party would take a chance with someone who inspires such palpable revulsion?

TPM and Karl Rove: unlikely allies in the push to secure the Democratic nomination for HRC. I know why Rove's doing it. Why is TPM?

Hoppy wrote on August 27, 2007 4:52 PM:

Ms Clinton might win if she is the Democratic candidate next year. But, I don't doubt that Edwards or Richardson would win. Clinton will lose many Democratic votes, and many of those she loses will not even bother to vote at all. That is bad news for the other races on the ballot. Obama is an enigma. I keep wondering what percentage of the people who say they would vote for him would actually do so when they can chose to vote for a Repub who looks like someone they would expect to become president. What really bothers me is that we must have learned by now that close presidential elections are always "won" by a Repub.

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 4:56 PM:

it's hard to imagine just what the gop could say that's new enough to drive up her negatives significantly higher than they already are.

Who says anything new needs to be thought up? Just keep preaching the same old stuff during the general election. I think more people happen to be following this primary season than ever before, but that still means a bunch of people aren't going to tune in until a year from now. I don't think new things need to be brought up. The GOP can just start repeating the old ones next fall.

Sure, it's not going to affect people who follow politics like it's an addiction. But it could still affect the coverage, and, the average voter.

CT Voter wrote on August 27, 2007 4:58 PM:

it's hard to imagine just what the gop could say that's new enough to drive up her negatives significantly higher than they already are.

Who says anything new needs to be thought up? Just keep preaching the same old stuff during the general election. I think more people happen to be following this primary season than ever before, but that still means a bunch of people aren't going to tune in until a year from now. I don't think new things need to be brought up. The GOP can just start repeating the old ones next fall.

Sure, it's not going to affect people who follow politics like it's an addiction. But it could still affect the coverage, and, the average voter.

PS: is there any possibility of bringing back the nested comment feature?

And making the print just a teensy bit larger? (And it doesn't work in IE to change the text size).

Manu wrote on August 27, 2007 5:07 PM:

Frankly, at this point, anybody will do - HRC, Barack Obama, John Edwards, hell, even Joe Biden! And I think the polls bear out that sentiment. Voters will elect just any democratic candidate.

JSP wrote on August 27, 2007 5:11 PM:

I'm beginning to come around to thinking that Hillary *might* be electable. She wouldn't be my first choice because of her history of DLC-style centrism, her obviously calculated (and misguided) vote on the Iraq war resolution, and her stubborn refusal to admit that she made a mistake. However, she has many qualities that could make her a good president.

I do have one concern that I haven't seen anyone raise yet: What's to prevent Bill's hyperactive libido from ruining her campaign or, if elected, her presidency?

frankly0 wrote on August 27, 2007 5:17 PM:

The netroots can't seem to dump on Hillary enough, to the point that some are starting to say that they won't even vote for her should she be nominated. Yet any fair reading of the polls makes it clear that she has by far the best chance of winning the nomination.

In 2004, Dean was the clear favorite of the netroots, and Kerry probably the most disliked candidate.

Of course, the netroots has tried to pretend that the failure of their prized candidates and the success of the candidates they most sneered at are attributable to some magical inside the Beltway coterie who force the wrong candidate into victory. Problem with this account, though, is that it's real people who vote for the candidates in the primaries, and somehow those real people just have very different, even opposite preferences.

I wonder how much clout the netroots can really have in the long run when they seem to dislike so vehemently and so stubbornly exactly the successful candidates. How much real influence, for example, might, or indeed ought, the netroots exert over a President Hillary Clinton, having trashed her from the beginning to the end of her run for the nomination?

In many ways, the netroots seems to have no ability to get itself out of a cycle in which it petulantly demands what it can't get, and then is surprised and outraged that what it gets isn't what it demanded -- fueling even more of sense of frustration and petulance in the next cycle.

All of which is pretty much a recipe for marginalization.

Bemused wrote on August 27, 2007 5:19 PM:

"The charge is thrown around with a startling degree of recklessness by our pundits, who more or less base this assessment on little more than the fact that someone else said it before they did."

A truer statement has never been made. I've just been amazed lately by how incapable so many pundits are of original thought. If it hasn't happened in the past, they can't conceive of it now, unless, of course, it's because 9/11 changed everything. Chris Matthews is a great example--I don't think he can talk about the presidential race without mentioning one of the Kennedys, Reagan, or Monica. When he talked about women liking Fred Thompson because he's an Old Spice type of guy, I just about died, for so many reasons. Our punditry--out of touch and purveyors of groupthink.

audiophileguy wrote on August 27, 2007 5:21 PM:

Like several of the above posters, I am a lifetime Democrat with very serious concerns about Hillary's reasons for wanting to be President. I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances, either in the primary or the general election. Somehow, voters like myself are being omitted and/or lost in the polls. I cannot understand how Hillary polls so well, when so many everyday folks feel strongly that she is not good for our party or for our country. For the record, I am not sure who is the best Dem candidate in 2008. Perhaps it is wrong to say that Hillary is "unelectable"---even if I believe this to be true. However, I am certain that Hillary is the worst thing that could happen to Democrats in 2008, and the best thing that could happen to Republicans in 2008.

Bemused wrote on August 27, 2007 5:23 PM:

"The charge is thrown around with a startling degree of recklessness by our pundits, who more or less base this assessment on little more than the fact that someone else said it before they did."

A truer statement has never been made. I've just been amazed lately by how incapable so many pundits are of original thought. If it hasn't happened in the past, they can't conceive of it now, unless, of course, it's because 9/11 changed everything. Chris Matthews is a great example--I don't think he can talk about the presidential race without mentioning one of the Kennedys, Reagan, or Monica. When he talked about women liking Fred Thompson because he's an Old Spice type of guy, I just about died, for so many reasons. Our punditry--out of touch and purveyors of groupthink.

Michael Caine wrote on August 27, 2007 5:24 PM:

Brought to you by the same people that said, "Noone can question that John Kerry was/is a War Hero."

Larry Geater wrote on August 27, 2007 5:24 PM:

Polls measure the breadth of a candidates support/negatives. They do not measure the depth. Sen Clintons problem is not how many people view her negatively but how negatively they view her. I am a life long democrat who were it not for the next presidents likely number of SCOTUS appointments would not vote for Ms Clinton. She is as slimey a pol as they come. Gov Romney has nothing on her. I would so like to have some one to vote for instead of having to hold my nose and pick the lesser evil. Either Sen Edwards, or sen Obama would give me that oportunity and I would enthusiasticly support their candidacy. Sen Clinton on the ballot would make me wish for a third option.

Fred M. wrote on August 27, 2007 5:28 PM:

Why does everybody seem to think there is this huge difference in experience between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama? I don't see how there is unless you count her time as First Lady ... and excuse me, but does anybody really believe this should count?

Also, she is wrong on most of the major issues ... and frankly, she scares me. It seems to me that she is always trying to prove she has larger testicles than any of the male members of Senate. She is also too "comfortable" with the Washington culture for my taste.

We need an outsider that is willing to shake things up a little. Hillary would be business as usual.

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 5:28 PM:

Anybody assuming that the Dem. candidate can not loose needs a hard cup of reality tea. The election will not be one where most of the netroots are, or most of the hard core conservatives are. The election will be won or lost in the swing states, as always. I live in a state that votes Dem in a big way. It really won't matter if that vote swings 10% either way - the Dem candidate will win.

What will matter is the electoral map, and that will be determined by a lot of folks who just don't pay attention this far out.

When we see how things are with Iraq and the economy in the spring / summer of 2008, then we can do the math and see who is favored.

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 5:28 PM:

DO NOT BELIEVE THIS NONSENSE. HILLARY CANNOT WIN! The GOP is SANDBAGGING and the Dems don't play dirty like they will. The GOP is salivating over an HRC nomination (and it looks like they might get one) and they will nail her and the Democratic party to a cross in 08 if she's the nominee. I'm sure they have a whole bag of new dirty tricks, but just remember some of their favorite crap: firing the non-partisan travel office, FBI files she "found", she's a commie (health care plan), she was a lover of Vince Foster and had him killed, she had Ron Brown killed, she's a radical anarchist (college paper), she's a lesbian (bullshit, and who cares), she ran half the White House and they wouldn't even take Bin Laden when Sudan offered him to us, Clintons failed to do anything despite the Cole, embassy etc, Clintons are to blame for 9/11, Clinton pardon of Marc Rich, Hillary hates stay at home mothers, she's the biggest control freak ever, she's ugly and fat and so is Chelsea, Bill Clinton has sex with everyone why does that qualify her to be President? IT IS MOSTLY BS, BUT REMEMBER THE MEDIA EATS THIS UP. Hillary says she knows how to fight, but where has that worked? By not getting kicked out of office? By beating Rick Lazio? Bill was impeached on this nonsense (black prostitute baby, anyone?)...they are inept at fighting the right. They lost Congress and handed the WH to Bush. THE GOP IS LARGELY SILENT OR COMPLIMENTARY TO HER TODAY, that is why she polls "ok." How gd stupid do we have to be to not see this coming????? Worst of all, her policies are right of Nixon (makes them centrist today). We have to speak out, and can't let this happen. It isn't fair, but HRC cannot win. Period. It's suicide to run her. I'm so frustrated because Dems are being played by both the GOP and the sophisticated Clinton campaigns. Look at the negatives BEFORE the GOP has started its noise machine. Please people. Think about it. Think hard. Tell your friends why she can't win.
Thank you.

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 5:33 PM:

In 2004, Dean was the clear favorite of the netroots, and Kerry probably the most disliked candidate.

And how well did nominating Kerry over the objections of the netroots work out for us?

Buddy wrote on August 27, 2007 5:33 PM:

I am still to be convinced that the electorate can look beyond race when it comes to Obama. I speak as a black male physician!

stlounick wrote on August 27, 2007 5:34 PM:

I'm on record as viewing Hillary as electable but in yet another close election.

Someone else pointed out that these national polls say very little about how a general election will turn out, particularly in the states we term swing states. That matters.

Another point is that these match-ups do not address how favorable/unfavorable a candidate is with Reps, Dems, and Inds. That matters.

A final point is that Hillary has few "I don't knows" while the other candidates in both parties have high numbers of "I don't knows" at this point in time. Depending on how the polls dealt with the "I don't know" would make a difference in the percentages in the tables presented. That matters.

As CT Voter pointed out, there is no need for new slime. I would also mention that new voters perhaps would see the old stuff as new.

It is early days in the election and we all may see the Hillary numbers improve--particularly since other analysts see room for Hillary to move folks to a favorable view of her. The other candidates of both parties will also have settling numbers. We'll simply know more as the primary campaign season progresses.

There's simply no reason to settle for a particular Dem candidate at this point in time. Pick the Dem candidate that best matches where you think the country needs to go; work for that person in the primary; and let's take this up in December.

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 5:38 PM:

Running Hillary is suicide. Just wait for the GOP slime machine to start-up. It will be ugly. The Dems don't play dirty like the GOP will. She won't be Mondale, but she's likely to be Dukakis. *BANGS HEAD AGAINST WALL* It's so obvious to many of us. I feel like I did before the Iraq war knowing we were being lied to. People just don't get it. We have a chance to roll back this ruinous GOP cycle of basically the last 30 years. Even people who disagree with me must concede it's risky to run her. Why take such a risk? All the Dems have to do is to run a likable candidate that isn't Clinton. That's it. We win easy. Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson can all win walking away.

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 5:40 PM:

Remember this polling data is BEFORE the GOP starts sliming her. She isn't electable. This is like the GOP putting up Barry Goldwater....suicide.

AJ wrote on August 27, 2007 5:42 PM:

While I agree the case for Hillary's unelectablity is often overstated, Bower's decision to throw out one polling firm because it doesn't fit his hypothesis is dubious at best. I'd love to see what Blumenthal or Franklin have to say over at Pollster.com.

CalD wrote on August 27, 2007 5:43 PM:

Oh, oh, Greg. Hope you wore your asbestos underwear today.

Seriously though, when I look at the numbers for a generic democrat vs. republican numbers I have to think that the head-to-head numbers we're seeing now for any specific Democrat are likely to get revised upward once we have a nominee -- or perhaps as importantly, by the time Republicans do. Don't forget there's also a Republican primary race going on. Mitt Romney won a Massachusetts governor's race that was no pillow fight, let me tell you, and he has the resources to "draw distinctions" (as they say) between himself and Giuliani on a national scale. I would not expect him to be bashful about doing so. Romney of course is already testing against leading Dem's at bout the same margins as the generic Republican vs Democrat.

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 5:43 PM:

Just imagine the tv spot the GOP is going to run saying the Clintons refused to take Bin Laden when he was offered to us. The ad will say Clintons could have stopped 9/11. Still think this polling matters?

MasonMcD wrote on August 27, 2007 5:44 PM:

That's a pretty shallow look at the polls.

Take a look at the percentages who feel they don't have enough information to make up their minds.

Edwards and Obama are in the mid to high 20s. Hillary is at 6%.

6% feel they don't know enough about Hillary to make up their minds.

So she squeaks by Giuliani. Let's hope Guiliani is at his ceiling, because Hillary is at hers.

MasonMcD wrote on August 27, 2007 5:45 PM:

That's a pretty shallow look at the polls.

Take a look at the percentages who feel they don't have enough information to make up their minds.

Edwards and Obama are in the mid to high 20s. Hillary is at 6%.

6% feel they don't know enough about Hillary to make up their minds.

So she squeaks by Giuliani. Let's hope Guiliani is at his ceiling, because Hillary is at hers.

Spect Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 5:45 PM:

AJ you make a good point, but the even larger problem is that this polling is done before the GOP goes after her. Why isn't this like the most obvious thing in the world to everyone is beyond me.

tominma wrote on August 27, 2007 5:47 PM:

Democrats who mindlessly repeat Republican points should be challenged. There is no Republican talking point more urgent right now than that Hillary Clinton is a false, insincere and manipulative. To those on the right, they say that she is covering her socialist pinko reality. To those on the left, they say that she is covering her neocon reality. Either way, their most important message is that she is insincere. If this poisonous meme can take hold, her essential moderation, and centrism can be overcome.

How do we know that she is more insincere than any other national politician -- bush, romney, thompson etc.? We know that she is insincere because the leaders of the DC village, and Chris Matthews and David Broder have told us so. Do the people who say that they see her insincerity when they watch on TV actually know her?

This is the season when liberals write the scripts for Republican commercials in the fall. This is the season when we let the media define the character flaws of our candidates.

There is plenty to choose among our Democratic candidates on policy and position. But once we shorthand into the character analysis of our candidates so favored by our media, we are delivering the election to the GOP.

Respect Yourself. Respect our Candidates. If we don't, why should anyone else?

frankly0 wrote on August 27, 2007 5:49 PM:

And how well did nominating Kerry over the objections of the netroots work out for us?

And how well would Howard Dean have fared in the general election, given his own story regarding the Vietnam War in which he got out of serving because of a back problem, but was able to ski in Aspen nonetheless?

Could any honest person not see that Dean, who was laid low by a shout, was going to do only far worse against the Republican machine than Kerry?

oleeb wrote on August 27, 2007 6:00 PM:

I certainly agree with the bottom line of this analysis. Of course, Hillary is electable. I don't think anyone has seriously thought that she couldn't win. The real question is can the Republicans beat Hillary and what are her chances against them in a real campaign versus the chances of other potential nominees. It is the high negatives she brings with her that raise the relevant question.

The thing that cannot be taken into account and isn't measured in this analysis is the infinite number of variables that could come in to play during a campaign that effect how people vote on election day. I also don't think this analysis could take into account what the various impacts of unknown Republican attacks would be either for her or any of the candidates. But that's really the question that no one can answer this far out isn't it? What will the Republican smear campaign consist of and will it work? If it works, how well will it work? Will it be enough to turn the tide for the Republicans or will the Democrats withstand the smear campaing and prevail? This question is valid for all of them, not just Hillary.

If camp A can raise enough doubts about camp B's candidate in a campaign and take B's negatives to the point where there are enough people with doubts and negative impressions to vote against that candidate, then camp A has a shot at winning. That's been the Republican formula in how many races Presidential and otherwise for decades now? I don't think anyone seriously thinks Hillary cannot win and if they do, then they are taking a very shallow view of things. However, by the same token, anyone who thinks that her high negatives from the word go are not a serious liability going into a national election are not viewing the situation realistically. Can she overcome the high negatives and still win? Of course. Is it certain that will happen? Of course not. But, at least from the vantage point of today I would certainly bet against the Republicans and for Hillary for November 08 as I would for the other two leading contenders vs the opposition. That bet assumes that Hillary's team would be able to effectively repulse any and all attacks the Republicans hurl at her and that the political situation remains as dire for the Reupblicans as it is now.

No political situation is guaranteed to remain stable so feeling certain either way on Hillary at this point is still and uncertain proposition in my opinion. It is not a question that anyone can answer with absolute confidence either way. I do think it is something voters need to consider long and hard before leaping on the Hillary bandwagon though because the high negatives issue is real. Is it enough of an issue to believe it could jeapordize retaking the White House or making gains in the Congress and stathouses? Voters will have to make that decision at some point down the road, but I don't think most have tuned in enough to think about such things at this time.

lj629 wrote on August 27, 2007 6:03 PM:

Greg writes:

...it's hard to imagine just what the gop could say that's new enough to drive up her negatives significantly higher than they already are.

Back in 2004 it was hard to imagine the GOP taking John Kerry's creditials as a war hero and using his service in Vietnam against him.

Fred M. wrote on August 27, 2007 6:07 PM:

No poll is going to convince me that Clinton has a chance in hell of being elected.

I can't help believing that just the number of Democrats who would either not vote for her or not vote at all if she is the candidate is high enough to ensure her defeat. I also agree that her candidacy would mobilize the right and contribute to a disaster for the Dems in congressional elections.

Bottom line, I don't want to see another Clinton or Bush in the White House in my lifetime!

Fred M. wrote on August 27, 2007 6:13 PM:

One other point about Hillary. Her election would polarize the country and the government. We would see attacks on her that would make the ones on Bill pale in comparison.

Her election would result in polarization and gridlock. It would be bad for the country and bad for the Democratic Party.

wglad wrote on August 27, 2007 6:20 PM:

So let's see. Folks who say Rove is trying to get us to nominate Mrs. Clinton are saying he's saying she's not electable so we will think she really is electable and nominate her when she is sure to be defeated? I don't think Karl thinks we're smart enough to fake out like that. It's much simpler. He wants to run against Mr. Obama and he thinks he can talk us into it.

Alan wrote on August 27, 2007 6:21 PM:

I have not read such a load of nonsense about the electability of HRC. For those of you who will never vote for her: get a life. She has enough problems with the right. You only add to it and are no better than the wingnuts. You are so sure about your own sense of what is right that you are no better than Michelle Malkin. I have always taken the view that Hillary haters on the left are not one whit better than their counterparts on the right.

Fred M. wrote on August 27, 2007 6:25 PM:

Alan, have you considered the fact that there is a reason so many folks on both the right and the left have a problem with HRC?

It's just possible that their judgement is better than yours. Furthermore, we don't need any more personality cults like we have with the "loyal Bushies."

tominma wrote on August 27, 2007 6:26 PM:

All this talk about 2004, as though it was the ultimate picture of reality ! Enough !

Yes, the GOP smeared Kerry's war record. Is that why he lost? We don't actually know that, do we? That's the kind of analysis that gets you a place on Hardball -- like "Al Gore lost because he wore earth tones."

Yes, Hillary will be smeared. John Edwards will be smeared. Barack Obama will be smeared. My mother told me about the smear whisper campaign against Adlai Stevenson, (that he was gay) in 1952 and 1956.

Two things against it: (1) We are better in responding to smears and I don't think anyone is going to be better than Clinton. and (2) fewer people believe the Republican party about anything anymore.

Some things have changed since 2004.

But understand this: the smear that the Republicans want you to believe is that all of our leading candidates are insincere and false. Believe that one, and their work is done.

terry hallinan wrote on August 27, 2007 6:27 PM:

Isn't it rather foolish to claim polls taken over a year before an election with no presumptive nominees on either side proves anything?

Though I will not vote for Hillary nor any imaginable Republican nominee, I have posted that I believe right now Hillary is most likely to be the next president.

And I think that is very bad news for Democrats, the country and the planet - and good news for Republicans.

Best, Terry

patchwork wrote on August 27, 2007 6:33 PM:

I will never vote for her. I am not inclined to feel guilty about it either and btw I do not hate her.

I cannot reconcile my conscience with her war vote. I don't care if the rest of the country is willing to accept her. I won't.

Three troops in Afganistan killed today and one troop killed yesterday in Iraq and two the day before. She will NOT explain that vote other than to say she was "duped" and if she had the intelligence today she had then she would not have voted for it. That is really giving the finger to people who recognized and knew, who protested, who wrote letters , who were informed by information readily available on the internet and who were appalled at the lies being told by Bush, Cheny , Rice, Powell and the rest of the neocons.

I conclude, she wanted it.

She will never get my vote as I go to sleep at night with the images of troops blown apart and killed, children being bombed out of their beds and all the rest of the horrors this fake war has brought about.

Sorry, just cannot and will not do it.

Fred M. wrote on August 27, 2007 6:33 PM:

How about a little poll right here ...

One has to figure that visitors to this site are overwhelmingly Democrats and are much more interested in politics that the average Joe.

How many here could not vote for HRC?

I will start. I am one who could not!

wglad wrote on August 27, 2007 6:35 PM:

With 3 more Supreme Court appointments coming up, I'm backing whichever Democrat gets nominated 100%!

Alan wrote on August 27, 2007 6:39 PM:

Fred M:

I note your response. I am an Obama supporter, first and foremost. But after that I will support the Democratic nominee. My point is that HRC is an easy target for self righteous criticism. Look, we may not want Bush/Clinton redux. But HRC is the first woman who is a serious contender, and Barack the first Black. I am not conflicted. I will support either. My main interest is poking a finger in the eye of the Republicans. So if either one wins I go to battle stations. Either way (forgive my own weakness) I want to see a breakthrough in who becomes President of the USA. Time for a change. Cheers Fred M. I appreciate your very reasonable response. Really appreciate the tone.

Jeremy wrote on August 27, 2007 6:47 PM:

Given how early it is and that Hillary has higher name recognition than any of the Reps, shouldn't she be leading them by much more than either Obama or Edwards?

Also, there's winning an election and then there's winning a mandate. I don't want 50%+1. The political pendulum is swinging the progressive way and we Dems are going to pick a polarizing candidate with a bunker mentality over an inspiring new face? Sheesh. Hillary has said that despite it being her number one domestic priority she can't deliver on health care until a hypothetical second term. (Apparently she sometimes discusses hypotheticals after all--as she also did in ceding national security credibility to the right).

What does this tell you about the mandate she herself expects to win?

Furthermore, as others upthread have noted, looking only at head-to-heads and ignoring the data on negatives as well as Obama's strong advantage over Hillary with Reps and Independents, can hardly be described as a "most comprehensive" methodology. In fact, it's a really shallow look at the available data. That's not just my opinion. It's a factual error by Sargent that should be corrected. Bowers methodology, as a matter of fact, is nowhere near comprehensive.

Having said that, if Democratic primary voters do what they are told and nominate Hillary, she will likely win the general election. But will she win a mandate?

Fred M. wrote on August 27, 2007 6:47 PM:

Hey Alan, at least we agree on Obama! I think he would make the best president of any of the candidates.

I like him because he is an outsider and a true uniter. He is intelligent, but also smart enough to surround himself with knowledgable advisors with varied viewpoints.

I think he would be good for the country.

Jeremy wrote on August 27, 2007 6:56 PM:

tominma

If you are worried about Hillary being perceived as insincere, you should tell her not to attack fellow Democrats for saying things when she herself has said the very same things. Am I, an Obama supporter, supposed to sit back and watch her lie, distort, and spin then not say anything because according to you I'd be supporting a "right wing meme"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlx3ADyAnzk

dcshungu wrote on August 27, 2007 7:02 PM:

Greg Sargent sez:

Thanks, all...I really am stunned by the mindlessness of pundit repetition of this, based on literally nothing at all...

An astute remark heard here over the last few weeks, as I had repeatedly tried to hammer home that very point. It is right on the money... The echo chamber that is the punditry kept repeating this canard over and over again, hoping that, somehow, it'd become a self-fulfilling prophecy, despite poll after poll that showed Hillary gaining. There is no doubt that she was trailing the top-tier Repub candidates in head-to-head match ups, but that was BEFORE the public got to see and hear her, respectively, across the smokescreen of the punditry and over the echo chamber noise. All of a sudden, Hillary was no longer the evil incarnate that they'd heard about, but a smart, poised and coherent human being. The voters are believing their own lying eyes and ears...Imagine that!

The icing on the cake is Kos's endorsement, however oblique or reticent...

poetry wrote on August 27, 2007 7:20 PM:

A 'SurveyUSA' poll from Aug. 21 shows Hillary Clinton doing very well as a general election candidate in some pretty red Southern states.

In VIRGINIA, she beats Rudy Giuliani 49-46%, beats Fred Thompson 51%-42%, and tops Mitt Romney 53%-39%.

In KENTUCKY, she beats Rudy 49%-44%, tops Thompson 51%-44%, and beats Romney 53%-41%.

In ALABAMA, Hillary edges out Romney 48%-46%. The 'SurveyUSA' polls were conducted from August 10-12.

Hillary is also ahead in ARKANSAS where she beats everyone including the GOP candidates. She beats Rudy Giuliani 55% to 37% (Rasmussen poll)

In FLORIDA, Clinton tops Giuliani 46-44 percent, flipping a 46-44 percent Giuliani lead July 23

In KENTUCKY, Hillary beats Giuliani 49 to 44.

In VIRGINIA, Hillary beats Giuliani 49 to 46.

In FLORIDA, the Aug. 17 Rasmussen poll showed Hillary Clinton leading both Giuliani and Thompson in general election matchups.

In PENNSYLVANIA, Clinton edges Giuliani 45 to 44 (Quinnipiac poll)

Now, I assure you the Clinton haters here at TPM will wail that "polls don't mean anything," but I guarantee you that if the polls showed other candidates beating Hillary these same haters would be bragging about the deep meaning of the polls.

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 7:30 PM:

Eleeb-

"I don't think anyone has seriously thought that she couldn't win."

Are you not literate? I'm as serious as I can be that Hillary can't win. I haven't come by this decision lightly. In fact, it took me quite a while to piece together just why so many people believe these polls. A month or two back it occurred to me, she was only competing against fellow Dems so far. She looks relatively good at this point because she doesn't have to deal with the GOP hate machine. From pundits to just ordinary folks, people seem to forget that Hillary got those negatives from GOP attacks, attacks which are largely nonexistent for the moment.

This is another case of Americans with amnesia. We may have liked the Clintons. We may have even known they were facing a smear campaign like no other. What some of us seem to have forgotten is that Clinton got impeached, the first President since Andrew Johnson. This wasn't just a hate machine, it was the most effective political attack of the past 130 years. BC was nearly thrown out of office for lying about a blowjob in a civil case that was a patently bogus setup job from the start.

The Clinton people not only don't know how to handle the GOP, they're practically the worst political machine of the modern era. There is no way Clinton should have been impeached. For all the crap slung at the Clintons, they were the easiest targets one can imagine.

Hillary's people say they know how to fight back, but where is the proof? They never have been able to. They've famously gotten their (and their party's) ass handed to them. If it wasn't for this ridiculous war the Dems would STILL be out of power thanks to the job the GOP did on the Clintons. Now there is a real opportunity for change, the country wants a Democrat, and it looks like we're about to put in the backup shortstop of the Clinton team to pinch hit in '08? This is madness.

I'll reiterate. Some of us never really put too much faith in the Clinton body count crap, or the Whitewater nonsense or Troopergate, or Monica, or Jennifer Flowers or Paula Jones. We made fun of the people who thought Elian Gonzales returning to Cuba was an evil plot. We didn't blame Bill Clinton for Blackhawk Down, and we don't hate him for going into Bosnia. We knew Vince Foster committed suicide and that Ron Brown's plane crashed. Waco was no conspiracy to burn people, and HRC didn't fire the Travel office out of spite. We also knew the Clintons were the furtherest things from commies and that Clinton merely approved the sale of GPS equipment to China (not selling nuclear secrets). And, of course, Bill Clinton didn't rape anyone or father a black child to a prostitute. Chelsea and Hillary aren't lesbians either...and Hillary was right to call it a vast right wing conspiracy.

So why, on God's green Earth do we want to open that can or worms back up? And you know they must have faked up some new stuff (my guess is lesbian lovers, some more corruption smears, and blaming 9/11 on the Clintons). You simply aren't being serious if you don't imagine all this won't be brought right back into the open. That 49 percent negative number is going to go up at least 25 percent if I had to wager a guess.

Clinton supporters, please do not take what we say so lightly. Have you really thought back to all the crap even Janet Reno went through? Limbaugh is still around. O'Reilly was a light weight compared to what he is now. Hannity, well no one paid that much attention to him. Now it's 2008. They have the WSJ, the NY Post, the Wash Times, Drudge, WorldNetDaily, CBN, Brent Bozell's Cybercast News, the Free Republic, the Weekly Standard, David Brooks at the NY Times. They can push any piece of trash in the morning on Cybercast News, have Drudge pick it up, get a the Post and Wash Times to print it the next day, Fox News that night, and the NY Times, WaPo the following morning. In less then 72 hours these guys can turn any baseless rumor into fact reported in all but leftwing media. Do you think they aren't going to shovel the crap?

Some are arguing, yes , but any Dem will have to deal with that. Okay, that's true, but that's why we can't put up an easy target with history of being exploitable (even unjustly). They can't do what they've done to the Clintons to any other Dem. Sure, I'll admit, give them 8 years, they may be able to turn Mother Teresa radioactive.

One thing I'm sure of, Hillary is radioactive already. If we can't figure that out.... well we deserve to lose, again. I hope we aren't so foolish. Hillary supporters, please reconsider.

Jeremy wrote on August 27, 2007 7:36 PM:

poetry,

Since you support Hillary and not Obama, shall we conclude that you are a "Obama hater"?

This is what we mean when we talk about the "bunker mentality" of the Clinton campaign. What is this supposed to be, "with us or against us"? C'mon. People can support other candidates without hating Hillary. Certainly, we can note that it's a bit early to throw in the towel for the candidate we on the basis of some polls without being "haters".

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 7:40 PM:

Poetry-
The polls don't mean anything because we know what the GOP can do to Hillary. We've seen it done to her before. We don't know they'll be anywhere near as effective trashing other Democrats. We do know they're damn good at working the Clintons over.

And please, Hillary haters? Is that really necessary? I'm sure some do hate Hillary here, but hating her has nothing to do with whether I think she win. I think Bill Richardson is a slime ball (I lived in NM for a time so I have my reasons). Even so, I think he's electable, even if he's not our best candidate. Set aside liking Hillary or disliking her for a moment. Rove is telling the truth (amazingly) when he says someone with her negatives has never won. And, I'll keep repeating, the GOP isn't even going after her yet. Clinton bashing won't start until they think she's got the nomination locked away. Not until then will you see real numbers. People imagine Hillary can win when Bill Kristol and the other Fox pundits keep repeating what a tough candidate she is.

This GOP media machine has accomplished to historic achievements, 1. getting a popular President impeached and 2. getting a war started for no good reason. Stop being so cocky and face the facts. Bush is a royal mess and without his war the Dems would still be in deep trouble. Thankfully we have the war. Sadly, they still have their hate machine, and we know what it can do versus the Clintons. We've all seen this show already.

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 7:49 PM:

I just want to clarify, when I say, thankfully we have the war, I'm speaking in strictly political terms. Of course unjust wars are never good things but good things can come as a result. Let's hope people realize what a mistake the GOP has made and the good that comes of it is a correction where the country takes a populist swing to the left. Let's hope we can put up a candidate that can win and get this country back on the right track.

NCSteve wrote on August 27, 2007 7:50 PM:

Okay, the link you linked to doesn't say "boy, she could definitely win this." Instead, what it says is "gee, if you ignore the polls Hillary is doing poorly in and look at the ones whose sampling bias works in her favor and there's definitely a possibility she could win." At best, it indicates that maybe she can eke out a one ot two percent victory in an election we should smack down with a massive majority. Assumingm that is, that all the single, divorced and widowed wowmen without a college degree who are her base can get off one of their jobs work long enough, or find something to do with the kids after work long enough for them to get to the polls. She's going to have to have a better turnout among that demographic than the Republican has among the theocrat zombie hordes that'll be out to vote against her. Right. Now, I'm convinced.

In any case, the issue isn't whether she's unelectable, its a) whether she is the most electable, b) what kind impact her campaign would have on the party and the country as a whole and, c) what her presidency would look like if she could win.

On a) the problem is the intensity of her negatives and, frankly, the employment and child care problems of her base, in states we could win if the disaffected Republicans took a pass. NONE OF THEM will take a pass if Hillary is on the ticket. She will mobilize them like no one else. Could she win? Quite possibly, although I'll be convinced when I see her getting a majority in the head to heads with the Republican possibles rather than an inside the margin of error plurality.

On b), We could be on the verge of a realignment back to our side this year. All the signs are right. A Polarizing one or two percent win (or loss) by Hillary could stop it in its tracks. The Republican power brokers fear the same thing and are counting on her to stop it.

On c), what will her presidency look like? It will look like Clinton Wars II, this time with paparazzi following Bill everywhere he goes. In other words, give up the CPR on the hoped-for realignment and bury it.

poetry wrote on August 27, 2007 7:50 PM:

I am not a Hillary supporter. I simply believe in fairness and accuracy -- and it can sometimes be a struggle here on the TPM boards.

I was right about one thing (smile): it didn't take five minutes before some anti-Hillary person was telling us, "polls don't mean anything."

I have said many times that I like ALL of the Democratic candidates and will cheerfully vote for whichever one becomes the Democratic nominee.

Those who say they will not vote for Hillary "no matter what," are simply helping the Republicans to win again.

If they will be happy with whoever a Republican president would appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court, then they will just have to live with that.

Unfortunately, all the rest of us -- who understand what one more extreme rightwing vote on the U.S. Supreme Court will mean to our rights and freedoms -- will have to suffer along with the "no Hillary under any circumstances" crowd.

LongTom wrote on August 27, 2007 7:56 PM:

The polling numbers have nothing to do with Hillary's "electability." The perception that she faces a greater hurdle than Edwards or Obama is based on her high unfavorables. There are simply too many people whose votes she has no chance to get.

Unfair? Yes. Unwarranted? Yes. But true. There's no candidate the Reps want more than Hillary. She's a blast from the past when what everyone wants is to look to the future.

Of course, the wingnut hate machine hasn't turned its full force on Obama or Edwards yet, so it's possible their unfavorables will head uphill, too. But Obama has a huge upside that Hillary can only dream about. The very best she can do is win a squeaker. Obama, if he makes things break for him, could get 60% of the vote.

Bowers also had an electoral map showing that, according to state polls, Hillary would win a huge electoral majority. That's just horseshit. She's going to have a tough enough time holding Pennsylvania, let alone winning Missouri and other reddish states that Bowers says she's leading in.

NCSteve wrote on August 27, 2007 8:00 PM:

And Hillary hater? Please. Yes, that makes it all very easy, doesn't it? Dismiss all the diquieting facts because we're just blinded by our hatred of her (no doubt because of her gender).

I don't hate her. My feelings about her aren't even entirely negative. But, honestly, the vast, and entirely gratuitous, sense of entitlement displayed by her campaign combined with the utter refusal by her and her supporters to recognize that she's endangering our best chance to pull out a big win in a must-win election smacks of Naderism, writ large.

Hate? No. Utter exasperation? Yep.

Throw in the canned, formulaic, consultant and focus-group driven campaign, and exasperation goes into outright annoyance.

AnnS wrote on August 27, 2007 8:11 PM:

I still can't be convinced that Senator Clinton isn't a gift to the Republicans. One thing that convinces me is my own lack of enthisiasm. Sure, I'll hold my nose and vote for her but, I'd vote for Attila the Hun if he were the Democratic nominee. Unlike in 2000 and 2004, however, I will not send money, volunteer to make phone calls and do all the other scut work that I believe is my Democratic duty. She doesn't inspire any anthusiasm in me, and every time she acts like a Bushian in disguise, she repels me further.
Anyone lese (Dodd,Obama, Richardson), I'd open my veins and bleed for them.

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 8:15 PM:

Poetry-
It's your naive attitude that is going to get the Republicans the presidency. I realize you're not claiming to be a supporter of Hillary, but you're supporting polls that mislead people into thinking Hillary will remain where she is or improve. Just look to the recent past and see the success the GOP has had against the Clintons. Hillary already has historic negatives and, guess what, they're going to spike way up when the gloves come off. Dems play nice, maybe we shouldn't. But as we both share the same goal I think it fair to point out your own righteousness about this whole matter. I wanted Dean in 04, but I'll admit I thought Kerry was good enough and I thought he'd win, so I make mistakes. But I'm so friggin sure of this that I just can't stand by and not throw a fit. Hillary needs to be stopped by Dems NOW! She will lose us the Presidency and likely congress. The GOP has NOTHING to motivate it's base at the moment. THE GOP NEEDS HILLARY TO MOBILIZE THEIR BASE.

When and if any of you cast a primary vote for Hillary, you will in fact be casting a vote for the Republicans. I can't make it any clearer. I would bet my everything I own on this. Are you THAT sure? I am, and I'm not saying any of this because Hillary wouldn't be fine as President (I'll even tell you I'll vote for her in the general if she wins the nomination...my opposition to her is purely pragmatic. Please consider what I am saying.

hwc wrote on August 27, 2007 8:37 PM:

Again. The unfavorables are Republicans. Clinton has nearly universal unfavorables among Republicans. Offsetting that is that she has the highest favorables among Democrats, somewhere around 84%.

Al Gore has similar numbers. Why? Because both Gore and Clinton are national figures. All Republicans know enough about them to hate them.

They don't know as much about Edwards, so he gets lower unfavorables from Republicans. So what? It's not like Republicans are actually going to vote for the Democratic candidate.

Here's my prediction. Clinton not only wins the White House, but wins it with somewhere between 300 and 320 electoral college votes. It's not even going to be a particularly close election.

Women were 54% of the voters in 2004. Single women were 22% of the voters and they vote massively Democratic. Figure the first female President after 230 years of the same old, same old screwing things up by old white dudes is going to drive the womens vote by a percentage or two.

Alas, the pundits and the netroots are so homogenously male that they can't see it. Agree with the poster above who suggested the Dylan song, "There's something happening here and you don't know what it is, do you MISTER Jones."

rbrianj wrote on August 27, 2007 8:44 PM:

All I know is that Hillary has been given a reprieve by Republicans during this nomination battle. Edwards has been a lightening rod for the right wing. Republicans obviously believe that of the top candidates Edwards is more of a danger in the general election, so they continue to attack Edwards personally or try to speak of him as an after-thought or a joke. You learn more about the strength of the candidates by observing how the other side responds to them. They have done all the polling and the research. There is an obvious concerted effort by the Republican Party, to cripple Edwards, downplay his debates, talk up the hypocrisy charge.

That's Politics 101.

Hillary can win, but the Republicans like their chances with her more than Edwards and Obama.

oleeb wrote on August 27, 2007 8:50 PM:

LongTom I certainly agree with your observations about the problem posed by Hillary's negatives. I would think it concerns everyone who is serious about not just winning in 08, but who would like to trounce the other side. In my opinion, Hillary as the nominee puts that possibility into question. Her candidacy could well mean the difference between an okay year for Democrats versus a blowout from top to bottom.

As for spectatorconsumer... please calm down friend. Really.

I understand you feel strongly about this and that's all well and good, but those who don't completely agree with you are not stupid nor are they illiterate. Nor are they failing to hear your genuine concerns. I also understand that there are a large number of good Democrats who share your opinion, but it is only an opinion: it is not a fact. You make some good points about what would weaken Hillary as a nominee for President.

Yet, to say flatly that there is no way Hillary could ever be elected is not a self evidently true statement. I think to base one's view of the situation solely on personal opinion is a shallow analysis that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. There is ample evidence to the contrary and many (who don't necessarily want her to be the nominee) do believe she is quite electable based on reliable survey responses as well as their gut.

All I said was that anyone who says she cannot win is taking a shallow view and I stand by that. It's just not correct to say that there is no way she can ever win. She can win. It is possible. That is clear. Will it be very, very difficult? Will it be more difficult than for others? I certainly think it will be---because of the high negatives which are an extraordinarily important factor in all this. Is saying that she can conceivably win the same as saying she will definitely win? No, it is not.

Personally, I think Hillary would be a very problematic nominee indeed and none of us know for certain how her candidacy would pan out in a national election next year whether for good or ill. Is there reason for concern? You bet, and I said so above!

Nonetheless, if you look at Democratic primary voters, especially females, they are right now forming what looks to be nearly a majority of Democrats behind Hillary's candidacy. That means Hillary is the odds on favorite to win the nomination. All the frothing at the mouth that some Democrats engage in at the prospect of a Hillary candidacy is, shall we say, more unbecoming of them than anything else. I understand where they're coming from, but I don't think they need to go ballistic just yet.

Personally, I want to see a devastatingly Democratic year where up and down the line Democrats are winning elections nobody thought they could ever win. 2008 could be such a year with the right nominee at the head of the ticket. It's the first year in decades where that is even a possibility. If we had a Democratic tsunami in 08 we could conceivably win enough seats in Congress that it would take 20-30years for the Republicans to get back in the game. That's my fondest hope and dream.

But, and this is a big but, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee I think the chances of that big year being 2008 are slim. I do, however, also concede, that I could be wrong on this point though I think it rather unlikely.

I will vote for her if she wins the nomination, but she certainly is nothing like a first choice for me. I would not do so enthusiastically for numerous reasons that pertain to her politics and what I believe to be her bias in favor of the status quo. I also have a problem with the whole dynasty approach to politics we are seeing. I would harbor no expectation of significant changes occuring under her as President.

Regardless of the tepid feelings many Democrats have for her, apparently, for lots of women Democratic voters especially, Hillary Clinton is the first choice and that's why she is in the lead at this time. Unless that bloc of voters is persauded otherwise, chances are she will be the nominee.

As I said above, however, I don't think most voters have given much (if any) thought about the broader implications of Hillary as the nominee. I also don't think most voters have really listened much to what the candidates are saying. In the few places where voters have had lost of exposure to the candidates and where more people have tuned in, Hillary does not run as strong as she does nationwide right now. When the voters nationally do tune in, in the coming months, we may see the numbers start to shift one way or another.

But the bottom line remains the same and that is, that it is not a foregone conclusion that there's no way Hillary could win in November 08. It's certainly possible she could win. It just may not be the kind of win many Democrats would prefer is all.

Jess wrote on August 27, 2007 8:52 PM:

But I like the idea of hillary being unelectable..

poetry wrote on August 27, 2007 9:06 PM:

It's actually interesting how many here self-identify as Hillary haters when I mention the term. I have accused no one by name of being a Hillary hater. That is what some have done for themselves.

Look, this bulletin board is about Hillary's electability, so I put up some poll numbers -- many of which have been verified here at TPM Election Central -- to show that Hillary seems to be doing quite well in the polls.

One poster seemed to conclude -- since I posted facts that picture Hillary as electable -- that I am against Barack Obama.

I am NOT against Barack Obama; I like Barack Obama and admire much about him and his candidacy. I will enthusiastically vote FOR him if he becomes the nominee, and that goes for all of the current slate of Democratic candidates.

As far as I am concerned, the Hillary haters would be those who say that, no matter what (and, presumably, no matter who runs as the Republican nominee) they will NOT vote for or support Hillary Clinton for president.

Facts really seem to annoy that bunch.

Jeremy wrote on August 27, 2007 9:26 PM:

poetry,

You seem to have missed my point. You want to suggest that people that support other candidates than Hillary, and who thereby emphasize the data that is in tension with the data you want to focus on, are "haters". If you were more focused on the "won't vote for her under any circumstances" crowd, then that would be one thing. But you are painting with a broad brush. . . then busting out the fine tip when challenged on it. I was not suggesting that you were in fact an "Obama hater" but rather that the broad criteria for "Hillary hater" that you used initially when you suggested those offering counter-evidence were doing so out of hate would, if consistently applied, make you such.

Finally, consider this paradox of your posts. On the one hand, there's all these "haters" even here on a mostly Dem blog. On the other hand, Hillary won't have any problems in the general election. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Ron Robertson wrote on August 27, 2007 9:30 PM:

I just don't get this Hillary hatred. You'd think she was Joe Lieberman, who has undermined the democratic cause at every possible opportunity.

One other thing, I'm convinced that the majority of this opinion about her is not based on empirical evidence, it's based on perceptions fomented by the media, or just plain misinformation. Nearly every bad thing mentioned about her voting record turns out not to be so bad when you do a little research

Has HRC made some bad choices? Yes, of course she has. But that doesn't mean she would be a GIGANTIC improvement of the occupant we now have in the White House.

And frankly, I think people are just being foolish that say they'd never vote for HRC under any circumstances. They would TRULY rather have another republican in the White House? That just makes no sense.

I can understand wanting someone else to win the primary, I have no problem with that. But, whoever the nominee ultimately is, I certainly hope that we won't undermine him or her.

I've seen Hillary speak quite a few times, she comes off as quite intelligent and decent. Certainly nothing to set people off the way I see here and elsewhere.

Work for whoever you want to see win the primary, but doesn't it make a little bit of sense not to trash the other candidates too far? Why help the republicans out? They need to be helped in seeing how monstrous the republican rule has been, not distracted with baloney about HRC.

MasonMcD wrote on August 27, 2007 9:40 PM:

Again, we find the polls indicate Clinton would do about as well against the Republicans as the other Democratic candidates, but this issue still hasn't been addressed:

Only 6% of all voters haven't made up their mind about her.

That number is 25+% for the other democratic candidates.

I'm sorry, but I don't like a squeaker and everyone has made up their mind.

Jan wrote on August 27, 2007 9:53 PM:

"Spectator Consumer" warned us:
Just look to the recent past and see the success the GOP has had against the Clintons.

Excuse me, but the GOP has NEVER had success against the Clintons.

He won in 1992.
He won by an even larger margin in 1996.
The GOP impeached him in 1998, the GOP lost seats in the 1998 election, and his poll numbers went up... and have stayed up since.
She won in 2000.
She won by an even larger margin in 2006.

So your feeble warnings to those of us who support Senator Clinton are now met with facts.
Please stop spreading baloney.

Jeremy wrote on August 27, 2007 10:09 PM:

Jan,

Your point is well taken and I agree that SC missed the mark. . . but beating Bob Dole? Not exactly a huge victory. Further, you leave off 94, though I wouldn't blame Clinton for that. And did the Clinton legacy have anything to do with Bush being even close to Gore?

My view is that the Clintons did an admirable job fending off the Republican tide. However, Hillary can't seem to shake that old bunker mentality. This should be a Democratic tide moment, but instead of inspiring us Hillary is saying "can't do anything on my top priority until the second term" and "you shouldn't talk about your views when you're running for prez".

It's not 1994, and Hillary needs to ditch that old bunker mentality.

Btw. . . I'm not one to question the poll data, but I'd like to add a couple anecdotes to the thread. My Dad, a Bush ex-Republican is enthused about Obama. Hillary? Not so much. I spent a weekend with some of my brother's friends, marginally political types. Again, very similar perceptions. Granted this small focus group is all males and that's an important fact. But this anecdotal evidence does seem to support the contention that because of Hillary's high negatives she will have a much harder time winning a progressive mandate. . . No wonder she wants to put off health care reform.

anon wrote on August 27, 2007 10:34 PM:

I think the number of posts says it all.

I agree with those who say they've never seen so many people say that they've heard people say "I could never vote for her"

I would hold my nose and vote for her - but boy it would be tough. She just doesn't do ANYTHING for me.

And Bill - well he WONT be president, and it's not like he was perfect.

I say Obama represents the hope of the Democratic party.

Forget Edwards - too pretty and he's a trial lawyer! Sorry - he has a good issue, but it's negative.

Nobody else out there worth talking about that I can see.

HST wrote on August 27, 2007 10:47 PM:

Anon,

Yeah, Hillary is a bitter pill to swallow, but Obama has no chance at all. There's a reason Edwards does better in the matchups and that's because he is a better all around candidate with the widest appeal. What exactly does Obama stand for anyway? I like him, but there's no there there with him. He's appealing to most people only because he is a new face, not because he has anything new or different to say. His positions are nearly indistinguishable, as far as I can tell, from Hillary's.

Edwards is the only one running for President who has a chance of winning who actually acts, talks and sounds like he's a Democrat. I'd say Edwards is the only one who represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party in this election cycle and that's why, despite how it looks right now, he will be the nominee and next President. Just you wait and see.

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 11:16 PM:

Jan, in 1992 Bill Clinton won because one person. You might remember him, Ross Perot. In 1996 Clinton did well against Dole and Perot once again. Clinton was the first president impeached since Andrew Johnson. Despite a great economy his VP was afraid to campaign with Clinton and ended up losing (technically Gore should have won, but he should have won BIG). Hillary beat Rick Lazio, after cherry picking a Blue state to run in...nuff said. I don't even know who she ran against in 06, and I don't think she did either. Again, the GOP wasn't going to waste time and money to fight Hillary in a Blue state.

So is this winning? I guess you say so. I'd point to the historic loss of Congress, the fact they impeached and disbarred Bill, and Bush's ascension in the wake of scandal as dramatic indication of political ball stomping the GOP has done on the Clintons and the Dems up to 06. And, keep in mind, the Clinton successes, such that they are were three way races, or in NY, or in NY and against Rick Lazio.

You're going to believe what you want, but many of us suffered through that second term destroyed by the GOP. It is interesting how people can take different views away from the same events. To me, your view appears to be that of the person celebrating a fews trees left standing after a massive forest fire. If the Clintons were successful why Bush? Why the GOP control of Congress through 06? Why did those identifying themselves as conservatives jump while those defining themselves as liberals decline? Why did the GOP gain so significantly during and after the Clinton years? If that was Clintonian success, I'd hate to see failure.

ColoZ wrote on August 27, 2007 11:17 PM:

In short, across the broad I don’t think that there is any clear evidence pointing to Hillary Clinton as less electable than Barack Obama and John Edwards at this time.

Wow -- hell of a Freudian slip there!

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 11:32 PM:

This is the Dems time to take back everything. They can probably do it with any of the candidates except Clinton. They only need a candidate who won't turn out the GOP vote. Hell, in this climate, Kucinich could possibly win (not saying it's probable) because he'd get Democratic votes and the GOP has no real reason to turn out. The only candidate who can unify and give purpose to the GOP base is Hillary. They think the woman is the anti-Christ or something. I don't claim it's warranted, but why do we want to do the GOP any favors like that? Obama is probably bullet-proof. He's likable, charismatic, and will turn out the Democratic base (even more than they already will...) Meanwhile Obama doesn't have major negatives, the main criticism seems to be that he's wet behind the ears. If Bush Jr. can get elected you've got to be shittin me if Obama can't win in a landslide. Sadly for Hillary supporters, she just happens to be a lightning rod. God knows why, she just is.

Looking for Home wrote on August 27, 2007 11:38 PM:

I am someone who's used the term Hillary Hater several times on this site, and have noticed folks in this thread conflating fair criticism with outright hatred to question its fair use. OK - there's no point in debating the "validity" of arguments in this space, other than perhaps to demand some factual basis for them.

That being said, once you start interpreting and analyzing the meaning and impact of the facts you state, they become virtually as subjective as a totally unsubstantiated post.

FOR THE RECORD: I see a clear difference between someone questioning the truth of a candidate's claims or arguing against their policies, and calling them an evil scumbag that will wreak havoc on the country as bad or worse than the Bush Repugs (or its equivalent).

There is a fundamental difference there that an honest person must acknowledge...but that understandably a fanatic who likes to claim such things as their "facts" understandably will not.

None of this is to say that anyone who absolutely hates Hillary doesn't have a right to post on this site. I can sympathize but don't agree that vitriol against our own candidates can or should be 'controlled' in the blogosphere because it's a lost cause. And frankly I think rather than giving the GOP talking points, it provides a good warm-up for the kind of crap that a candidate Clinton is going to face if she gets the nomination.

But please don't try and say that spitting vitriol is something that it's not -- that disingenuous at best. There's a fairly clear line of what is constructive criticism that a fair person might respond to, or even modify their position to accomodate, beyond that just admit that you think she's an awful person and enjoy it. Wallow in it. Like a pig does in their own slop.

Looking for Home wrote on August 27, 2007 11:50 PM:

Follow-up: What I meant here by "lost cause" is that the blogosphere is a wide-open, uncontrollable forum, and should remain so.

(This new TPM world of not being able to edit takes a little getting used to...!)

zuzuzpetals wrote on August 27, 2007 11:59 PM:

Cannot for the life of me understand why the Dems would risk a candidate with so many negatives, known or new.

We (and the world) can't afford a close election. We need margins so large they will overcome any vote tampering. We need the base energized and working every call or we won't get the swing states. We need big broad coat tails. We need policy frames, not endless news cycles about rumors of Bill's roving eye.

And think beyond that. Do you think the Republicans together with the echo chamber are going to allow her to be a successful President should she win? It's going to be all scandal all the time with her wrestling them down in true come back kid style.

Let's turn the page on the endless Clinton/right wing tabloid drama. The world can't afford to have America sending up a Democratic candidate who's negatives may or may not defeat her.

DonnaG wrote on August 28, 2007 12:00 AM:

So you've got a big pot of stew and have eaten on it too many times in a row......and it sits there in the refrigerator sort of doing a guilt trip on you to use it or waste it. A lot of good ingredients went into its making. But, yeeech, please not one more meal of this. No more of that heavy weighted feeling from eating the same overheated ingredients. No more trying to spice it up with extra herbs or spices or side dishes. Looking at that stew just makes me really yearn for something new and fresh and crisp.

That's how I feel about Hillary Clinton. I'd just like to pitch the Clinton era onto the compost pile, and enjoy something new.

pedagog wrote on August 28, 2007 12:07 AM:

I think that many Dems who say that they would not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances are hiding a deep built-in insecurity about a woman as president. Oh, they say that's not true, that they would vote for other women, just not her. Oh yeah--I think that a lot of them are males who are fearful of losing that last bastion of male control--the White House.

I respect any one who won't vote for her because of their conscience regarding her Iraqi vote. That is a legitimate reason, but to spew all this bs about her insincerity, that she's duplicitous, etc...blah..blah...blah. Do you think that Obama has gotten as far as he has, or any of the other senatorial candidates, by being Mother Theresa? Grow up--politics ain't beanbag. They've all made many compromises to get to that level. Obama is not the second coming, and Edwards talks a great talk, but still lives in a 26-room mansion. Why does he need such a pretentious home??? Remember his pathetic performance in the debate with Cheney in 2004? Do you think he would be able to withstand the GOP slime onslaught this time around?

Another thing to consider about HRC--there are millions of waitresses, motel maids, housekeepers, etc., who have never voted, and are being targeted this time around by her campaign. You guys out there who detest her seem to forget about them [as does the MSM!].

I will vote for any Democrat this time around [especially because of the Supreme Court, a new AG for the Justice Dept., and a new foreign policy]. Those of you who say that you will never vote for Senator Clinton if she is the nominee, SHAME ON YOU, if you are a Democrat. Go over and blog at redstate.org instead!!!!

Brian From Ohio wrote on August 28, 2007 12:46 AM:

Just because she can be elected by the same margins as Obama or Edwards doesn't mean she should.

Her electability isn't the issue, her ties to Washington lobbyists and traditions are. Additionally, the issue she energizes the GOP base more than any GOP candidate is something to consider heavily.

All things being equal, Obama at 50% and Hillary at 50%, you take Obama because he doesn't turn out GOP voters against you, he turns them out for you.

Bill McD wrote on August 28, 2007 12:59 AM:

As a New Yorker... I cannot envision myself voting for Hillary for President. I can accept having her as a Senator, largely because her Presidential ambitions mean that she has to continue to keep the voters happy to get there. Once there, though, she really has very little to worry about. If Shrubya can get a second term, I'd have to imagine you could get a Potato re-elected to the Presidency. This gives her little, if any, real reason to remain responsive to the grassroots of the Party once she's in, and her performance in her original Senate campaign proved that she has no publically-acknowledged core beliefs... just a chameleon-like tendency to assume to colors of her surroundings.

Vote your discontent, not your pragmatism. If we're all discontented the same way, that candidate will win. If we're not, the pragmatic one still wins.

Anonymous wrote on August 28, 2007 1:13 AM:

Spectator Consumer sez:

Are you not literate? I'm as serious as I can be that Hillary can't win. I haven't come by this decision lightly. In fact, it took me quite a while to piece together just why so many people believe these polls.

And if you are "as serious as you can be" and "you did come by this decision lightly", what difference does it make as you're just as wrong? I mean, who really cares , considering how deluded you are about just how important you are to the whole process?

Spectator Consumer, indeed... Thinks that s/he can decide the outcome of events by pontificating from the sidelines and sounding self-important

Anonymous wrote on August 28, 2007 1:17 AM:

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 27, 2007 5:43 PM:

Just imagine the tv spot the GOP is going to run saying the Clintons refused to take Bin Laden when he was offered to us. The ad will say Clintons could have stopped 9/11. Still think this polling matters?

Case closed. The prosecution rests, your honor...

LOL.

Shungu wrote on August 28, 2007 1:25 AM:

In the spirit of full disclosure 'Anonymous' in the preceding two posts is me, not used to the new format yet. It makes it harder for "direct" exchange by getting rid of 'threading'...was this a Good Thing, I wonder...?

shunganunga wrote on August 28, 2007 2:32 AM:

The Clinton Campaign and those in the pro-Hillary camp seem to spend a lot of time trying to convince us that she wins the debates, she's the most polished speaker among the candidates, she has the most money, the most endorsements.

But, none of that matters on Election Day. It's only about who gets the most of their voters out. And we all know that Hillary will drive out the more Republican voters than anyone else. And judging from the comments here and elsewhere around the internet, her candidacy will drive down the numbers of Democrats voting.

If anyone points that out they are called a Clinton-hater. It seems to me they should be labeled as someone who can count.

bjobotts wrote on August 28, 2007 4:13 AM:

In MO a dead guy won the election over John Ashcroft. That's right...a dead guy.

After Bush the Democrats could run a dead guy and he would win over this group of GOP yahoos.

"Unelectable" is a term that is irrelevant when it comes to the '08 presidential campaign for democratic candidates. Whoever wins the democratic nomination will be the next president. Doesn't matter who it is because all of the democratic candidates would make good presidents after Bush. "Unelectable" is a term used to sell media headlines and stir discussion that really makes no difference in this upcoming election.

One should just pick whichever democratic candidate they want as president in the primary without regard to "electability" because it will be a done deal.

The truth ticket is...Kucinich/Edwards '08...perfect. Afterall, it's not a popularity contest.

Desider wrote on August 28, 2007 4:14 AM:

As someone points out, the Republican slime machine will eat Hillary up.

It's already eaten half of the posters here up.

Shouldn't you be a bit worried that they've taken your soul, fogged your brains?

Someone says Hillary's too slimy. How? A 25-year-old cattle futures trade that no one can figure out how she could have rigged it? For saying there's a far-right conspiracy working against her? Killed Vince Foster?

Oh no, Sluggo - she didn't apologize for voting for the AUMF for Iraq!!! Well, she explained why she was voting that way at the time - not a free hall pass, but as a needed option to negotiate with a tough opponent - and she explained it afterwards. Okay, she's not wishy-washy. Don't like her stance? Deal with it, she's not taking it back. Is that pandering to the netroots? I thought she was unprincipled and only pandered and never stood for something. Well she's sticking with this.

Oh my, she takes campaign donations from corporations. Deal with it - that's what makes her electable.

She came out and said basically "Stop talking about abortion as if it's a good thing - it's not, it's a necessary evil and tragedy that we want to lower the need for". That's a good principle.

She learned to get along with opponents in the other part in the Senate and work on useful legislation. That's what she stands for.

Yeah, if you want Republicans to scare you off someone by continual smear year after year, sure, push someone else. But don't call that principled - call that buckling.

Desider wrote on August 28, 2007 4:24 AM:

I should point out that if the Republican Slime Machine can kill Hillary's election by publishing false and misleading stories about her and Bill, your problem is with the Slime Machine and not with Hillary. And you better help get the Slime Machine countered and neutered or nobody's going to win - "metrosexual hair-boy trial lawyer" Edwards, "not black enough for me - Hey, Barack, call me" Obama, "hi, I'm a slow-moving bobbing-head tortoise with a good resume and occasionally say being gay is a choice and other stupid things" Richardson, "I make Michael Moore look centrist" Kucinich.

Back in 2004 some bright-eyed person had the idea the Dems could run anyone and win, and we got John Kerry. Want to try that trick again?

Desider wrote on August 28, 2007 4:45 AM:

For DonnaG: Please, we've had 7 years of "something new". I don't care if it's new or old, I know want something else.

To Jeremy: What bunker mentality? Hillary is doing her job as a Senator, proposing legislation and countering the White House on its military positions/lack-of-planning. She's working with members of both parties. She's not Dick Cheney, she hasn't disappeared, she's not acting defensive (check out her performance at Yearly Kos), she's in full sight.

To half of you: GOP voters will come around to Hillary when they resign themselves to what a bunch of losers the GOP is running, and how disgusted they are with the Bush presidency. But only if there's a decent Democratic alternative. Hillary is making inroads into becoming acceptable to Republican voters, so quit fighting battles of the past. Yes, she's acceptable to women, and GOP voters include women. She'll be fine. Decide whether you like her or not, not whether she's "electable".

For everyone - please see a shrink. If you really have some real, concrete issues with Hillary, fine. If you're still suffering from Right Wing Slime Machine spin from the last 15 years and have a "gut feeling", please try to get these vestiges removed before you help another Republican get elected. Yeah, all this nasty chatter doesn't help when it's based on bullshit and vague innuendo. It'd be better if some of it were concrete examples: "She voted for the Iraq War", "She pissed on my tennis shoe", "I hate how she looks in lavender". Except for the War vote (which she explained, deal with it), and possibly her (and others') poor performance on pushing health care in 1993 (which she admits), all I see is vague speak about "negatives". Of course she has negatives - what do you think the Slime Machine spent 15 years and millions of dollars creating, daisies and posies?

don myers wrote on August 28, 2007 4:51 AM:

I guess the Dems will probably nominate her not because of her ability to win but because the Dems want to show the GOP that they can damn well nominate whoever they choose. Doesn't matter that there has never been a black, a partial black, or a woman as President before. It also doesn't matter to the Dems that someone's spouse has never been President before. The American voter will buy into these firsts. Don't fool yourself - she isn't going to become President. I'm not against Hillary (although I'm not convinced that Bill isn't going to be a part of the ticket). I think the GOP is pushing for her nomination!

Kenji wrote on August 28, 2007 5:17 AM:

I just wish Bowers (or Sargent) hadn't said, "...across the broad I don’t think that there is any clear evidence pointing to Hillary Clinton as less electable than Barack Obama and John Edwards ..."

He shouldn't call that nice lady a broad!

TheWinch wrote on August 28, 2007 5:32 AM:

While it is possible that this "most comprehensive look yet at the polling data" might warrant reviewing the CW that Hillary is less electable, it doesn't prove anything conclusive. Chris Bowers statistical rigor is completely lacking.

I would be FAR more impressed if someone on Pollster.com had analyzed this question.

As it stands, Chris Bowers analysis appears only somewhat better than that of the MSM pundits.

Atma wrote on August 28, 2007 6:53 AM:

I am a lifelong liberal and it is interesting to ask myself why I loathe Hillary. I think that a lot of it simply comes down to her personality. She just rubs me the wrong way. Her voice is really annoying. Shrill. Contrast that with Fred Thompson's sonorous voice, which is perhaps his biggest asset. It may be frivolous, but I am certain that her personality far more than her positions are why she is hated. Contrast her to Bill. He has a charm that she utterly lacks. She strikes me as arrogant as well.
I think that Edwards and Obama would be wise to speak out about her lack of electibility in a general election.

Spectator Consumer wrote on August 28, 2007 7:52 AM:

Shungu-

So, you don't think commercials about Clinton not taking Bin Laden when offered by Sudanese won't be a a powerful ad? Secondly, about your ad hom, why not stick to the arguments? We all pontificate, your opinion of my opinion is simply your opinion afterall. So what though, you have a right to try to be persuasive, as do I. Apparently you don't agree with my argument, but I'd rather you focus on it than on me personally.
My argument is fairly simple: current polling doesn't show how negatively the public will react to an HRC campaign when the GOP launches into her. Maybe you can explain, like some, that the Clintons really HAVE done well against the rightwing (I still need some convincing on that one) or that Hillary has changed strategies so much so that she is no longer vulnerable to attacks that have nearly half the nation finding her negative before any nasty campaigning gets underway.

Desider: Half the GOP will come around to her? Your best case scenerio is people staying home, she polarizes (again more a fault of the slime machine).

About repeating the GOP nonsense - I think you believe we shouldn't remind everyone. Well I think we need to. There was years of if in historic proportions, it's how she became the most hated first lady since at least ER. With the GOP silent, we need to break through and remember how she got those negatives (and still can't shake them). Maybe I'm wrong and this is as low as they can go, however I don't think we've heard much Clinton scandal in the past 8 years and right wing machine is dying to return to it as it gave them great ratings and won them Congress and a Bush Presidency. Why are the likes of Bill Kristol talking her up if they don't believe she's still insanely vulnerable? I don't think BK has the interest of the Dems at heart.

Jeremy wrote on August 28, 2007 8:01 AM:

Desider,

You asked "What bunker mentality?"

Hillary's bunker mentality has come out in her comments about being afraid of being used for propaganda. It has come out in her repeated discussion of the right-wing smear machine. It has come out in her repeated scolding of Obama for actually telling Americans how he'd run our foreign policy. It has come out in her unwillingness to fight for health care reform until a hypothetical (see, she does do hypotheticals) second term. It has come out in lashing out at Obama despite her 20 point poll lead. It comes out in the fact that she's running the least detail oriented campaign of the three front runners, because if she put a health plan out there they'd only attack her for it. It comes out in running on "experience" even though she has less of it than Richardson, Dodd, and Biden, rather than running on issues. Hillary's bunker mentality and over all cautiousness makes her the nominee least likely to fight for and least likely to win a progressive mandate.

When I was a little kid I used to flinch every time my brother raised his hand, even when he wasn't going to sock me in the arm. Is that what we want from our 08 candidate?

Josh wrote on August 28, 2007 8:02 AM:

Hillary is compromised for all the same reasons Kerry was, her ambivalence on voting for the war and her basic lack of charisma. Meanwhile Democratic voters fall in line with our typical sheepish zeal behind the candidate the Right tells us is the most sensible. The Right holds back long enough for her to win the nomination and just like they did to Kerry and . . . oh, what's the use?!

We're actually going to lose again, aren't we.

Bob Stanton wrote on August 28, 2007 8:21 AM:

Hillary will raise as much money for the GOP as the Dems and will lose to a moderate GOP candidate, a scenario that is increasingly likley. Rudy, for one, is pro-choice, liberal on social issues, and voted for Iraq just like Hillary. He is also a much less polarizing leader with real operating experience. I, for one, would easily hold my nose and vote for him over Hillary and I'm sure other Dems will as well.

The bottom line is that electable or not, she is not the right leader for ths country at this time. We shouldn't even be having these discussions. The country needs a smart, authentic leader capable of bringing the two sides together, not further dividing them apart a la George Bush. Hillary is not that person. She belongs in the Senate...not as the leader of the free world.

Obama, Gore and even Edwards, are the right ones for the job.

poetry wrote on August 28, 2007 9:29 AM:

Yes, "Jeremy," TPM's bulletin board is supposedly populated by Democrats, progressives and leftists, BUT I am not persuaded that all of the Hillary haters here fall under that umbrella. I have said many times that I think at least SOME of the Hillary haters here are rightwingers who have come to the TPM boards to DISHEARTEN Democrats about our front-runner.

I will say it again: I have called no specific poster a Hillary hater. By responding to me and defending themselves from that label, SOME here have identified THEMSELVES as Hillary haters. They will not vote for her under any circumstances, no matter who the Republican nominee is, and they don't seem to care what the result would be if such an attitude would lead to another Republican winning the White House.

The fact that Hillary is leading all the other Democratic candidates in all the polls SUGGESTS that she would have a better chance than they would of winning the presidency. People can disagree abut that, but sometimes I am shocked at the vitriol posted here by SOME toward Hillary -- and I don't think it is all coming from other Democrats at all.

Gee, could a rightwinger post here pretending to care about the fortunes of the Democrats?

Gee.

poetry wrote on August 28, 2007 9:57 AM:

The CLAIM here that Sudan offered Osama bin Laden to President Clinton but that Clinton declined the offer is FALSE and comes straight from -- drum roll, please -- Sean Hannity.

Can someone who thinks Sean Hannity speaks the gospel actually be believed about anything?

This rumor is EXPOSED on Media Matters for those who care about the truth: http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

...during his June 20 interview on 60 Minutes with CBS anchor Dan Rather, (President) Clinton categorically denied that such an offer was made: "'There was a story which is FACTUALLY INACCURATE that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us,' says Mr. Clinton. 'As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that.'"

NO ONE involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement No. 5," issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim:

"Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have NOT FOUND ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT the Sudanese claim."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I think the members of the 9/11 Commission know more about this FALSE story than the Clinton haters here do.

poetry wrote on August 28, 2007 11:42 AM:

"Bob Stanton" informs us that:

"Rudy [Giuliani], for one, is pro-choice, liberal on social issues, and voted for Iraq just like Hillary. He is also a much less polarizing leader with real operating experience. I, for one, would easily hold my nose and vote for him over Hillary and I'm sure other Dems will as well."

Well, Bob, Rudy tells us he is "pro-choice," but then he PROMISES to appoint justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in the "mold of Scalia and Alito."

"Promises" us to do that!

Now, do you think for a minute that any new Justice in the "mold of Scalia and Alito" will vote to retain a woman's "right to choose" regarding abortion?

Furthermore, this may come as a shock to you,but Rudy did NOT vote "for Iraq" (as you claim). That was a vote in Congress, and Rudy was not in Congress at the time.

If you would prefer Rudy over any Democrat, you must like a president ho believes in more power and rights for corporations, because that's where Rudy is politically.

You must also believe in the need to wage more wars and even more aggressive wars than Bush has.

You must also believe torture is a good thing and not to be scorned, because that's what Rudy thinks.

You might want to study up a bit on Rudy's life and record before being so eager to give him any more power over our lives.

As for "polarizing," I think you might want to investigate your assertion that Rudy is "less polarizing"; many New Yorkers and other people who know Rudy and his record hate him with a white heat.

poetry wrote on August 28, 2007 11:55 AM:

A further note to "Bob Stanton" about preferring Rudy over Hillary.

In New York state, where the voters actually KNOW something about both Hillary and Rudy and their records in office, the Rasmussen poll shows Hillary beating Rudy by a 25 point margin.

Hillary Clinton: 58%

Rudy Giuliani: 33%.

Desider wrote on August 28, 2007 11:56 AM:

Josh, Hillary doesn't have ambivalence on the war. The netroots simply wishes she was ambivalent. She allowed military action to be placed on the table as an alternative - she didn't say it had to be used. And she hasn't backed down from that position, even if she thinks the military action was a mistake. "I don't regret him carrying a gun, I regret him pulling the trigger when he didn't need to."

Jeremy, taking a poke at your opponent is "bunker mentality"? Have you ever played sports? Competed in business? Fighting back against an actual right-wing conspiracy is bunker mentality? Quite the opposite - Democrats supporting a ridiculous FISA amendment that trashes the Constitution is "bunker mentality". Why'd they do that? "Because we might get hurt in the elections". Talk about being scared and wetting our pants.

Spectator, yes, some Republicans are warming to her - whether it's "the Devil you know vs the one you don't" or actually realizing she's not a socialist as painted, or whatever, she's making progress with the supposed entrenched Hillary haters.

Remember all the conventional wisdom about "Clinton fatigue"? Anyone think it actually existed? Between Al Gore not always being the most inspiring speaker on the campaign stump and the press & "liberals" like Modo and Arianna trashing him left and right for made up reasons, and the Right Wing Spin Machine, that's what put Bush in. That's what gave Hillary her "negatives".

And there will be plenty of Swift Boat organizations to come out next campaign, whatever the candidate.

Atma, I can't tell why you like Fred Thompson's voice over Hillary's or why it matters to you. Personally I'd pinch myself 5 times before I let a candidate's voice drive me off. If you find the words that Hillary actually said really off-putting, I'd of course accept that. But the "guy I'd most like to have a beer with" test should have been put to rest once and for all. Give me the Elephant Man with good policies and I'll vote for him. Hopefully the rest of the populace is there too.

Miri wrote on August 28, 2007 2:03 PM:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/new_york_clinton_dominates_giuliani

According to a Rasmussen poll out today Hillary leads Rudy by 25 points in NY state. Yes, Rasmussen polls are questionable but this is still an impressive lead.

Rudy seems to be popular among voters who don't know him or his record well. In a state where voters do know him well he loses to Hillary by a wide margin.

My guess is as Rudy gets known better across the country and his record is scrutinized his numbers will continue to decline.

Michael in North Dakota wrote on August 30, 2007 4:44 PM:

...to all of you who have posted comments regarding Hillary being an opportunist. This is such a pile of dog ****. We are all opportunists. We all see oppurtunities in life that we want to go after; for our own good and/or the good of others. But, why on earth would Hillary or anyone else want to be president? The job does not really pay that great. Iraq is a disaster. Osama is still on the run. I am tired of the far left wing of the democratic party pissin' and moanin'. Hillary has a long record that you can look at. She is running as a hawkish moderate, which is important to get the independent vote. In addition, the dems cannot afford to look weak on terror. This is smart politics by Hillary. However, take a close look at her record. The woman is a socialist in my book; and plenty of liberal enough for all your far left-wingers. It is time to rally around Hillary. I LOVE her. Hillary has my vote, and I can hardly wait for the Clinton's to be back in the White House!!!! It is going to happen, just watch and see!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)