In New Hampshire, Hillary Pulls Away From Obama

Comments (67)

a wrote on September 25, 2007 4:38 PM:

Poo.

Keith wrote on September 25, 2007 4:41 PM:

There's something for all the frontrunners to crow about in that poll. HRC, rightfully so, will argue that it underscores her electability. Obama and Edwards will point to the high undecided voters (55%) and their higher favorability. Couple that with her low likability rating and it seems to me that NH is very much in play.

Tyler wrote on September 25, 2007 4:44 PM:

55% of voters have yet to make up their minds. Thats a lot of room for Edwards or Obama to gain on Hillary.

For a frontrunner heading into the general election who has only 15% of Democrats liking her, isn't that number troublesome?

Hillary would not have any crossover appeal in the general election.

oleeb wrote on September 25, 2007 4:58 PM:

Take a look at the PDF and see how people answered when asked if they've definitely made up their minds about who to vote for. Most are soft, soft, soft. This primary election is far from over folks.

Anonymous wrote on September 25, 2007 5:06 PM:

Woah -> Whoa

csp wrote on September 25, 2007 5:29 PM:

Let's be clear on the data.

It is not that only 15% like Clinton. It is that 15% find her the most likable. By definition you can pick only one candidate in that category. Would you say only 39% like Obama? Or, wow, 39% find him the most likable. (27% picked Edwards, all others are in single digits).

As for favorables - Clinton - 77%, Edwards - 76%, Obama - 78%. Pretty indistinguishable.

Hillary will have tons of appeal to many voters. Maybe "cross-over" specifically means Republicans. Then it is probably true that she does not have "cross-over" appeal. There are now reams of polls showing her having good strength nationally and state by state. Somebody besides Democrats must be willing to vote for her - I assume it is Independents - more than good enough.

Now disclaimer - I am not a Clinton fan. Really. Gore is my first choice. Edwards probably second. But Clinton is a real force and can certainly go all the way.

Key stats though - as others have said

Still trying to decide - 55%
Leaning toward someome - 28%
Definitely decided - 17%

This is still wide open.

john mccutchen wrote on September 25, 2007 5:31 PM:

15 point swings on nothing but air

Wake me when the killing starts and/or Hillary becomes heart-able

Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers on the other hand...nice

colonpowwow wrote on September 25, 2007 5:31 PM:

I have to congratulate the Hillary-bashers for their relentlessness in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Again, on a post that touts a positive thing for the Clinton campaign (and something that should encourage Democrats in their pursuit of the White House in 08) we get:

"Poo"

"her low likeability rating"

"Hillary would not have any crossover appeal in the general election"

"Soft soft"

Jah! I love the smell of sour grapes desperation in the morning.

Another pro-Hillary poster made the observation that on this site, every pro-Hillary article quickly becomes in the comments, a koombaya moment for Hillary-bashers huddling together in their crumbling raft of talking points, while the majority of us Democrats who support her and have always liked her end up "defending" her for being up 23 and 31 points respectively against her two "closest" challengers.

If you'd spend half as much time working for, cheerleading for, and promoting the positives of your preferred (excellent) candidate as you spend Hillary-bashing, you might not fall back another 5 points in the head-to-head polls every time you turn around.

john mccutchen wrote on September 25, 2007 5:32 PM:

Hillary Clinton - the 40% nominee

Add Evan Bayh and Rudy of the Three Wives starts measuring drapes

john mccutchen wrote on September 25, 2007 5:35 PM:

I have to congratulate the Hillary-bashers for their relentlessness in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Thank you

We are legion aren't we? Face that evidence and the 40% Nominee

To know her is to love her. The country just needs to get "reacquainted"

We'll do our best to help

joker wrote on September 25, 2007 5:38 PM:

the obama and edwards supporters still searching for their magical pony strike me as nader-lite. stop trashing hillary because she's trouncing your guys in the polls and get ready to support her as the inevitable Dem nominee.

colonpowwow wrote on September 25, 2007 5:50 PM:

john mccutcheon

So you will work hard to reacquaint the voters with the Ohh-I-Hate-That-Hillary issues that have served you and your preferred candidate(s) SO well so fay.

Oh, ouch!

colonpowwow wrote on September 25, 2007 5:54 PM:

I meant to say (in a fey voice) ". . . so far."

oopsie

Larry Geater wrote on September 25, 2007 5:56 PM:

Joker

If we nominate Sen. Clinton I will have a very hard time making myself vote in the presidential election at all. I have voted for the Democrat in every election since I turned 18. I voted for Mondale and Ducacus. But Sen. Clinton is more than I can stomach. Hillary supporters may call me names if they wish but nominating her will drive down turnout in a year that should be ours by a landslide. If we nominate her we deserve eight more years of Bush on steroids.

NCSteve wrote on September 25, 2007 5:58 PM:

So, if Hillary is so inevitable and unbeatable, why are the Hillaristas even paying attention to what the Hillabashers say in response to stuff like this?

Nick wrote on September 25, 2007 6:01 PM:

A freaking disaster in slow motion. HRC will struggle to 45 percent in the general. WAKE. UP.

colonpowwow wrote on September 25, 2007 6:04 PM:

Larry Geater

Please don't let the door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party. For every sourgrapes baby who makes a mad face and stomps out because Hillary won the nomination, there will be a hundred more excited about casting their vote for the first time to elect the first woman president in the glorious progressive history of America.

I predict the largest turnout of Democratic voters in history.

Hey, I hear Nader's taking resumes. Go sign up.

Jan wrote on September 25, 2007 6:04 PM:

I too have commented on the odd job of having to defend Hillary Clinton to her fellow Democrats in the face of good news.

This always reminds me of Mary Matalin claiming in 2006 that Senator Clinton couldn't just win NY this time around, she had to win by over 65% to be "viable" as a Presidential candidate.
(Everyone know her winning percentage?)

So... {sigh}
Bring on the next hoop you want her to jump through, and let's see if we can get Democrats to ever stop parroting the GOP's talking farts about the Clintons.

I repeat:
I -- an Independent from New Hampshire -- will be voting for ANY Democrat who wins the primary.
I DARE all Democrats to back their party's candidate, no matter who it may be. Otherwise, you should really stop even calling yourselves Democrats.

We all know Republicans are robots, but why are Democrats so seemingly self-loathing?

Larry Geater wrote on September 25, 2007 6:05 PM:

Colonpowwow

You have not heard anything yet. The contenders for the democratic nomination are trying to remain civil and not criple a posible nominee, out of party loyalty. You may rest assured that the GOP nominee will feel no such restraint. They will savage her about doners (both hers and her husbands), Whitewater, the futures trading deals, etc. There are documents from her time as first lady that are to be released after the nomination but before the election. Are you willing to bet an election that there is nothing in them that will be usefull to the GOP machine.

There is not another candidate on the stage at a Democratic debate that I would hesitate to vote for. There are at least five I can think of that would get my enthusiastic support. Sen Clinton would drive me to consider voting for the GOP candidate for the first time in my life.

bbln wrote on September 25, 2007 6:09 PM:

Is there really a correlation between likeability and electability?

In this case with the potential for the first female President - are people seriously going to respond to a warm and fuzzy, overly compassionate woman? C'mon, a woman would have to overcompensate the other direction...steely, determined and tough is what people want for their Commander in Chief, and that doesn't necessarily mean likeable.

Larry Geater wrote on September 25, 2007 6:10 PM:

Colonpowwow

There is little chance of me becoming a Republican. I am to the left of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. But I will have a hard time voting for Sen Clinton even knowing how that will affect the SCOTUS makeup. She is the kind of candidate who could drive me to do what is clearly in my political rivals best interest.

colonpowwow wrote on September 25, 2007 6:20 PM:

Larry Geater

With a 90% plus liberal voting record, I can see that. Perhaps you're right to sit this one out.

After all, she's just another corporate capitalist, while the other Democratic nominees are . . . are . . . socialists or something, I guess.

Hillary has already been slimed by the right wing machine for 15 plus years and she's still standing tall. She's fully vetted. I think if anyone yells "Whitewater" at her one more time, you will actually hear the sound of eyeballs rolling upward.

NCSteve wrote on September 25, 2007 6:23 PM:

So now that I've broken my pledge to myself not to comment on any polls until December, I look at the real numbers and see she's increased her lead over Obama by 7% in a poll with a 5.5% margin of error among "likely Democratic primary voters." Four months out. Part of the delta is in her number, part of it is in Obama's. Most are still professing to be undecided.

I expect the clueless CNN moronbots like Wolf Blitzer and Bill Schnieder will be just about wetting themselves to call the election now, but I'm still in "big f'ing deal" territory.

But hey, Hillary appeared on all five shows on Sunday, so she must be inevitable. The MSM CW is never wrong about these things.

kjoe wrote on September 25, 2007 6:30 PM:

I look forward to Russert's questions tomorrow night.

I hope he asks one which makes Hillary "laugh".

I hope Obama and Edwards make progress in tieing her campaign contributions to what her health program actually amounts to.

I hope GODDAMNED FUCKING SECTION OF TPM is not too timid to report on the Clintons' success in killing the story in gq.

I have unrealistic hopes, I guess.

Gary Vincent wrote on September 25, 2007 6:33 PM:

If Hillary pulls New Hampshire, they should lose the first primary forever. Should have lost it after they voted for Bush...
CrookedInc.Com

dcshungu wrote on September 25, 2007 6:35 PM:

If we nominate Sen. Clinton I will have a very hard time making myself vote in the presidential election at all. I have voted for the Democrat in every election since I turned 18.

Well, in that case be prepared to sit this one because HRC will be the nominee... We won't call you names and will be sure to still invite you to the inaugural ball.

So, if Hillary is so inevitable and unbeatable, why are the Hillaristas even paying attention to what the Hillabashers say in response to stuff like this?

Perfecting the art of quick response that will be critical to counter the Repub smear machine in GE...like friendly sparring partners

Anonymous wrote on September 25, 2007 6:47 PM:

I am to the left of the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

LOL. You mean the very far left wing where the nuts hang out?

NCSteve wrote on September 25, 2007 6:55 PM:

Colonpowwow,

Enough with the 90% liberal voting record stuff, already. Let me share some voting stats about great Senate Democrat who faced a tough campaign in 2006:

Americans for Democratic Action: 80
League of Conservation Voters: 100
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees: 86
American Civil Liberties Union: 83
American Conservative Union: 0
Christian Coalition: 0
National Organization of Women: 75
NAACP: 85
Human Rights Campaign: 88
League of United Latin American Citizens: 100
NARAL: 75 (based in large part on his Roberts vote; in 2004, it was 100)
Planned Parenthood: 100
Alliance for Retired Americans: 100 (their big issue: protecting Social Security)
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: 90
National Right-to-Life: 0
NRA: F (NRA gives grades rather than numerical scores)

Who is the liberal Democrat behind this great liberal voting record? Why none other than good ol' Joe Lieberman.

http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/truth-about-liebermans-voting-record.html

My point here is that a voting record racked up in a Senate where the only bills you get to vote on are the ones Trent Lott or Bill Frist allowed to get to the floor doesn't exactly tell you a lot.

Larry Geater wrote on September 25, 2007 7:12 PM:

Well, in that case be prepared to sit this one because HRC will be the nominee...

Even you know it is way to early to start counting votes. The only ones saying stuff like that are trolls and those who think that by saying it you can make it true. She is positioned better than her rivals at this point but there are months to go before the first vote is cast and the last week is when many voters make up their minds.

progressivedem wrote on September 25, 2007 7:18 PM:

I know there are strong Hillary supporters out there, I just don't meet many of them at my local democratic party meetings. Maybe they're there and just laying low. But hey, these are only the people who are the precinct committee reps, those who get on the ground, go door to door, and get out the vote. I organized these efforts for Kerry (partly because I was a strong Edwards supporter last time), but I smelled blood in the water in the Kerry campaign. Hillary will run a stronger campaign, but she has more actively high negatives than Kerry in some ways. We busted our ass going out of state for Kerry-Edwards. I won't be doing it for Hillary Clinton. Call me disloyal if you like, and then you can dock my lavish volunteer pay to punish me. Naderite, no. Vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, yes. But am I willing to work as hard for Hillary as for either Edwards or Obama, no. Just happens to be the case.

Liberal Larry wrote on September 25, 2007 7:19 PM:

If the Democratic Party doesn't change, America won't change. NO MORE corporate Democrats!

Keith wrote on September 25, 2007 7:43 PM:

Colonpowwow:

Can we all agree that point out facts from the poll are not Hillarybashing? She's got a commanding lead based on this poll, but the poll itself suggests it's a lead she could easily lose in the coming months (low likability compared to the other candidates, high undecided). Back your candidate, but don't bash people for pointing out facts.

AJ wrote on September 25, 2007 7:46 PM:

Help Us Iowa, you're our only hope. Help Us Iowa, you're our only hope.
Help Us Iowa, you're our only hope.

Someone is coming (phhht)

anonynon wrote on September 25, 2007 7:59 PM:

The problem with the Hillaryites is their vast and unrelenting paranoia. Most of the posts here are simple observations which do not constitute attacks of any kind. Yet, whenever anyone writes anthing that isn't overtly flattering to their girl it is interpreted as an attack and start getting all atwitter about Hillary bashing. Tiresome to say the least. It is precisely that attitude that puts off so many people about Hillary herself and her supporters in particular. Which is a nice way to say they are nothing if not insufferable.

party-of-one wrote on September 25, 2007 7:59 PM:

If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, the Republicans win the White House. Whether Hillary is elected or the official Republican, the priorities of the Bush-Cheney regime and its corporate enablers continue uninterrupted. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush. Jeb is next in the dynasty.

Heaven help us.

john mccutchen wrote on September 25, 2007 8:07 PM:

Hitting the White Powder Again???

Olbermann reports that Bush followed up his RodHam Victory Memo, sending backchannel advice to Sen. Brunhilde on how to stay in Iraq.

I think he's off the wagon and hitting the white powder again but at least he was lucid enough to choose his Debacle Co-sponsor

oleeb wrote on September 25, 2007 8:10 PM:

colonpowow, obnoxious, antagonistic posts such as yours consistently are could have a great deal to do with the kind of negative reaction Hillary and her supporters get from many otherwise loyal, liberal and very good Democrats. Can ya just tone it down a bit? The whole "na, na, na, na, na" approach you take is arrogant, uncalled for and off putting in the extreme. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is, but I'd hate to see personalities such as the one you display in charge of anything beyond a bake sale. There's only one thing worse than a sore loser and that's a bad winner.

john mccutchen wrote on September 25, 2007 8:12 PM:

Joker wrote on September 25, 2007 5:38 PM:

the obama and edwards supporters still searching for their magical pony strike me as nader-lite. stop trashing hillary because she's trouncing your guys in the polls and get ready to support her as the inevitable Dem nominee.

That's a funny one. Worried are you>

Rumor has it that Obama has raised another 30 million this quarter. No rumor, we are opening our Northern California Headquarters now.

Grand Opening Party - Obama for America, NoCali Headquarters, Sunday, September 30, 1 pm - 436 14th St Oakland (14th Street BART)

Don't count your chickens now, don't count them ever

This is not "Nader-Lite".

Anonymous wrote on September 25, 2007 8:14 PM:

colonpowpow

Yes

john mccutchen wrote on September 25, 2007 8:15 PM:

That's ME ColonPerson

kjoe wrote on September 25, 2007 9:11 PM:

sorry about the profanity.

Seriously---is the thing about the gq magazine story being killed not even worth discussing anywhere on any of the sections of tpm?

DonnaG wrote on September 25, 2007 10:59 PM:

I too am a lifelong dem. I too have worked my fanny off for dem candidates, often traveling out of state and incurring expenses hard to come by within my household budget. But, hey colonpowwow, I do not maintain my party registration nor I spend hours into days doing that volunteer work out of blind loyalty to a political 'brand', as though I had only the mentality of a high school cheerleader at a ball game.

I have, at times in my 60+ years, recognized some fine republican politicians, whose town hall meetings I attended because of those individuals' honorable behavior. And I have, at times, recognized some individual democrats who make me shudder in dismay. Thinking for myself, I gravitate almost always toward the democratic party and progressive values, but that is always and forever a matter of the individual politicians involved, never the 'party' brand alone.

Hillary Clinton makes me shudder continuously, and it is not for any of the trite reasons you project. It is because I value my personal freedom to follow and believe in my own instincts and impressions. Throughout the fall of 2002 and into the early months of 2003, I knew from my own intuitive sensing that BushCo was lying us into a war, and that lots of democrats, including Hillary, colluded in that.

Since January of '07, my personal intuitive sensing speaks loud and clear and continuously to me that Hillary Clinton would be a disastrous president, another chosen 'image' stand-in who does not personally have the qualities to lead a country. I have done due diligence by studying her record and watching her video clips and her behavior in the debates, all of which has reinforced my first intuitive impression about her...... that strong impression happening when I watched her taped announcement and noted how scripted she was right down to facial expressions on cue.

I reserve my right to speak against her candidancy and express my convictions. I reserve my free right to vote for Hillary or not to vote for Hillary should she become the nominee. I will tell you that I cannot imagine volunteering for her in a general election.

My passionate volunteering in this primary season is fueled in part because I want to do my part to restore America to a true centering, not a hawkish continuation of right-of-center insiderism which Hillary Clinton embodies in her record and in her sound bites. All the 'inevitability' memes about Hillary do nothing more than energize me to work harder for a better candidate, just as the war drums in 2002 sent me out to join protests.

When it is your oft-repeated projections spouted on these threads up against my right to think for myself on these matters, well, sorry to be blunt, but your concepts are a tad juvenile and wholly inadequate.

dfriend wrote on September 25, 2007 10:59 PM:

kjoe,

TPM had a post on the GQ story yesterday if I'm not mistaken.

Joe wrote on September 25, 2007 11:03 PM:

I'm so not understanding the Hilary-hate. Look at the most recent polls here in Virginia: Edwards beats all the GOP candidates and Obama beats most of them; but Hilary wins in a landslide against all of them. How do y'all come to the conclusion that she's going to lose to those GOP folks? I really don't get it.

GordonsGirl wrote on September 25, 2007 11:08 PM:

I really don't understand all the vitriol! Still, I'm testing the waters.

I'm pretty much a moderate progressive, definitely not a super leftie. I agree with the poster who stated that perhaps there are a slew of Hillary supporters out there but, here in the Midwest, I'm not meeting them. Out of about 4 dozen diverse Democratic friends, I know exactly three who support Clinton - one straight male, one gay male, one woman. They all support her for one reason - they want Bill Clinton back in the White House. The large majority remain undecided except for one detail - they do not want Clinton to be the candidate. Strongest opposition comes from women.

Personally, I simply cannot trust her. How she can stand on the same stage as Biden, Dodd and Richardson and claim the experience trophy is beyond me. In fact, the only Democratic candidate with less experience in elected office is Edwards. If she came out clearly stating - I know I've held elected office for less than seven years but, being married to Bill Clinton, I believe I am the most experienced candidate - at least I'd applaud candor.

This GQ story only adds fuel to my belief that, if elected, she will immediately wrap herself in the cloak of executive privilege. In the wake of this story, I truly hope Tim Russert will ask her tomorrow if she believes limitations should be placed on freedom of the press.

I fear that if she is the nominee - and especially if Giuliani is the GOP nominee - we will experience the bloodiest campaign in recent history.

jim wrote on September 25, 2007 11:33 PM:

I believe that only the Democratic party is dumb enough to nominate Hillary. No, the GOP is not even that dumb. Most of us out here in the real world are sick of the Bush-Clinton dynasty. There is almost a difference between the two. Really.

phil james wrote on September 26, 2007 12:14 AM:

Hillary promoters are worried. If they can convince themselves by rote repetition that her ascendancy is inevitable, that is better than dwelling on the underlying fear that she is the second coming of Michael Dukakis...that her candidacy will at a most untimely point collapse in on itself like a cheap souffle...that we will look behind the curtain, much as we had to do with Dubya..and see not much there that isn't all sheer ambition and little to actually commend anything like leadership.

xargaw wrote on September 26, 2007 1:04 AM:

Hillary is the candidate that the GOP is salivating over. They will have everyone in America hating her by summer if she is the nominee. Good grief, even a large part of the DEM party can't stomach her. I don't know a single DEM in my area that wants her to be the nominee. I can't help but think this is media and corporate hype at work. I think it may be more important to get out the vote for the primaries than in the general. If she is the nominee, I really don't care who wins and I have always voted for the DEM candidate for President for 35 years. I do think one thing that is hurting the DEMs is that Obama and Edwards are splittig the anti-Hillary vote. If it were only one of them running against her, she would be toast.

AJH wrote on September 26, 2007 2:02 AM:

When a hillary supporter can explain to me how hillary pulls a 2 to 1 ratio as the only washington insider in the race in an I hate washington general election in states like ohio florida and pennsylvania with a stance of I'll keep the troops in iraq but feel bad doing it, I might change my mind about her electability.

She can win the primary unless those same independents get off their duffs and reregister dem to get someone elected who can change the status quo in washington not continue the course.

Otherwise we end up with a republican in 08 absent a scandal for their candidate after the primary.

Last 3 democratic presidents were from red states and you have to go back to JFK to find a northeasterner. Our party better wake up or we're going to be very unhappy come november 08.

None of the GOP candidates suffers an immediate washington taint or even bush neocon taint. Come the general the canadian dollar surpasing the US dollar will be cast as hillary and the democrats joint fault with the neocons in approving deficit after deficit etc...

Look to history, Even bill needed perot to win. Carter needed the vietnam watergate aftermath and johnson got the kennedy VP vote.

We need a washington outsider preferably red state to have any chance. Or we can ignore history and put up another northeasterner thnking disatisfaction with the war when we arent running against any of the wars architechts will do it for us.

Hillary is more of an archit4echt of this war than any of the republican nominees blessing it from her armed services position and in light of her wisdom as an ex first lady at the beginning and throughout.

really wrote on September 26, 2007 2:03 AM:

The reason Hillary leads in the polls is very, very clear. Uninformed [in my opinion] female voters know her name and like the idea of a woman in the Presidency. That's how she has sustained such strong numbers plain and simple. They don't know much, if anything, about what differences there are between Hillary and anyone else. They just want a woman. Unfortunately, not all the candidates represent the same things or support the same kinds of policies. Hillary Clinton is a Republican in Democratic clothing. I don't want another Republican President thank you. DLC Dems, of which she is one, are for all intents and purpose Republicans.

The Clinton camp wants the inevitability meme to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the fact is that while the desire on the part of many women to see a woman as President is legitimate and perfectly understandable, once these voters actually start giving some thought to what nominating Hillary for the office means, we are liable to see a fairly swift deflation of her high numbers and the development of a much more competitive race than it appears at this point in time. This is perfectly consistent with the data in the CNN poll indicating most of the support for all of the candidates is fluid and could easily change. The majority of those surveyed have not made up their minds in any definitive way about who they will vote for 4 or 5 months down the road. Hillary may win the nomination, but it would be horrible for the Democratic Party if she were swept in simply by the desire of many women voters to see a woman elected.

I heard a folk singer sing a song once who sang a line that said "we're talking about changes, not just changing the faces at the top!" If Hillary is nominated I think her winning the general election is debatable but if elected she would not represent any real change, only changing faces at the top. We would have a Republican President in a skirt vs one in a flight suit. I think we can do better than that and I think many of the women voters propping up Hillary's candidacy to date will come to that conclusion sooner or later. Hopefully sooner.

kjoe wrote on September 26, 2007 2:52 AM:

dfriend wrote on September 25, 2007 10:59 PM:
kjoe,

TPM had a post on the GQ story yesterday if I'm not mistaken.

I have looked, and looked. I will look again.

dcshungu wrote on September 26, 2007 3:07 AM:

Hey folks, like it or not those numbers out of NH, Virginia, and the nation that show HRC with a commanding lead against all her opponents (Dem or Repub) are real and will soon solidify. The fact that you do not see or understand how she could be getting so much support says more about you than about HRC: You are a far lefty who never cared for the Clintons, and cannot understand how anyone in their right mind would support her. It is called State of Denial. Thankfully, the wingnuts (left and right) are a minority in this country (although they are more passionate). The center or close to it is where most of America is. Most people are reasonable and can think for themselves and decide what they like or do not like. That is why despite the MSM and wingnuts' prediction about HRC being doomed because of her AUMF vote or he so-called high negatives, she has continued to solidify her person-to-beat-status: The average Joe out there, who will determine the outcome of this election does not feel the same way as you do about HRC! In fact, the more the regular voters have seen her unfiltered, the more they have liked her, choosing to believe their own lying eyes over the fantasies and myths about her perpetuated by the MSM and wingnuts.

So, if you do not understand why HRC is doing so well, chances are that you are a lefty, who would not support her under any circumstances, anyway. This is about your strong personal animosity to anything Clinton and not about Clinton at all. You are blinded by it and can't see the obvious that so many out there have seen. You are in State of Denial. She will win the Dem nomination because she is the best candidate the Dems have: she is tough, smart, and disciplined -- exactly what is required to take on the Repub smear machine and prevail.

Her detractors have tried everything and failed and now they are even going lower. Their new talking points seem to go like this: a vote for Hillary will be a vote for continuation of GWB's Iraq policies, in particular, and the Republican agenda, in general. If you believe this canard, then you are really dumber than you sound through your posts. Why would HRC, if she the first woman to be elected POTUS, squander this historic opportunity by getting marred in GWB's war??? If anything, HRC would end that baby as soon as possible so that she can concentrate on pursuing those policies that would make her historic presidency one that all would be proud of. She is too smart and would understand the meaning of her presidency, unlike GWB who, in 9-11, squandered a golden opportunity to be one of truly great POTUSes, HRC would understand the importance of her legacy as the first female POTUS: she'll live up to it. The first thing that she would do as POTUS would be to extricates us from GWB's war, and she'll do it in a way that would minimize the chaos in the region...

S Brennan wrote on September 26, 2007 3:46 AM:

There's suddenly a lot of Democrats to be gotten rid of and Bill and Hill are just the couple to do it.

That's right...Murdoch supports Hillary.

If Murdoch is not the most powerful Republican in the country he is in the top five and Murdoch supports Hillary...why?

Murdoch supports Hillary, because he is hoping history will repeat itself. His reasonable hope is that Hill & Bill can not only turn back the rising tide of reform, but also get rid of a Democratic congress through their now famous triangulation. Murdoch reasons they did it once before, they can do it again. His motives are clear and the media won't bite the man who feeds them...that would be Murdoch...so if anybody gets within reach of the Hill & Bill re-run, expect to see more stories like the Edwards hair story. Or the Obama...is he black enough? Get it? The press is telling everybody Edwards is a f.. and Obama is a n...... And where's Hillary? Defending Democrats left and right? Oh no, Hill & Bill are smiling like Cheshire cats, have you ever seen either defend a Democrat besides themselves? Not old "stab 'em in the back Bill & Hill"

Yeah, Hill & Bill will get a free ride, they're good for Republicans.

dcshungu wrote on September 26, 2007 7:21 AM:

S Brennan wrote on September 26, 2007 3:46 AM:

There's suddenly a lot of Democrats to be gotten rid of and Bill and Hill are just the couple to do it.

That's right...Murdoch supports Hillary.

If Murdoch is not the most powerful Republican in the country he is in the top five and Murdoch supports Hillary...why?

Whoever wrote that post cannot be that bright and is clearly pushing the new talking point about how a vote for Clinton would be a vote for perpetuation of GWB's Iraq policy and the Repub agenda. The sad thing is that this guy and his ilk actually believe this canard, forgetting that if there is a Dem with a ton of legitimate reasons to despise the Repubs it is "Hill & Bill"!!! Remember Whitewater, Ken Starr, Monicagate, Fostergate... Do Hill & Bill have such short memories or are they so magnanimous that they would forget and forgive all of that so soon? Unlikely. You have forgotten but I am sure that they have not, especially Bill, whose impeachment over sex left an indelible "stain" on his presidency. Please use your brain or it will just atrophy and waste away! Take a look at this nonsense, for example:

And where's Hillary? Defending Democrats left and right? Oh no, Hill & Bill are smiling like Cheshire cats, have you ever seen either defend a Democrat besides themselves?

Tell me who did more than any other Dem to raise funds for the DCCC and DSCC that helped topple the Repub congress. "Hill and Bill"!!! They were tireless! And in 2004, do you remember Bill, still recovering from a heart operation, getting out to do a widely publicized event in PA with Kerry that might have saved the State?

Hill and Bill have been lifelong Dems, and have worked tirelessly for the party. With Bill's success as president compared to the current village idiot, I can see why a Republican might hate him; I just have a hard time fathoming the animosity for Hill & Bill from the lefties. Make no mistake about this, it is the far left primarily that believes in the so-called "Clinton Conspiracy." Most regular Americans are still crazy about Bill, full 8 years after he left office. The whole Clinton cabala with the Repubs is a figment of far left imagination. This has little to do with the Clintons; it is all about your feverish imagination. That Bill is easily the most popular politician in America today should tell you that you are way out there and out of touch with reality...in a State of Denial.

heretic wrote on September 26, 2007 7:58 AM:

People should be aware that studies of state polls show that Hillary will get over 300 electoral votes against rudy and slaughters everyone else even worse. She may be neck and neck in national GE polls, but that is because she is going to lose by big margins in the south and win by small margins in most of the rest of the country. Its all about the electoral college. Unless the repiglicans cheat again, there is no way she can lose. Unless the crybaby netroots sit out the election or vote green. I wouldn't rule out that betrayal from happening again. But then we know squarely where the blame lies.

F Portsmouth wrote on September 26, 2007 8:16 AM:

Living in NH for lo these many years I have found that 1/ Early polls mean nothing and 2/Early polls don't mean anything.

I guess it would be fair to say that HCs followers (MSM?) are grasping at straws with this poll. Undecided and un-favorable ratings are what is of interest in this, and other, polls. With 55% undecided and a 47% unfavorable rating HC's chances of winning the NH primary, if it were held today, are slim and none.

The NH voter is as savvy as they come despite what some out of Staters would have the MSM believe. We have met, many times in some instances, all the candidates. We have had them in our homes and we can tell fluff from fact and reality from rhetoric.

HC is a product of the DLC, she is packaged, primped and prepared by her corporate handlers and, having met and heard her many a time, she is about as believable as the idiot in the WH.

The NH voter is as independent as they come. They distrust most of that that is produced in the beltway. They very rarely tell pollsters the whole, unvarnished, truth. They delight in leading political pundits down the garden path and yet when they get into the voting booth they may disagree with some of the political positions their candidate of choice takes but will not vote for outright liars. As an example how well have the various bushies done in NH despite early polls?

Attend any house party for any candidate in NH and you will soon hear negative after negative about HC and negatives mean a 'NO' vote in the election..... despite what the political operatives would like us to believe.

DonnaG wrote on September 26, 2007 8:24 AM:

dcshungu writes, "I just have a hard time fathoming the animosity for Hill & Bill from the lefties."

Dcshungu, I suggest that if you really want to fathom anything, you will first have to refrain from feverishly jumping to the wrong conclusions upon which you base your rant.

In just the one sentence I quoted, you erred at least twice. Error #1 is the erroneous label of 'animosity' which you place upon fact-based non-preference re: Hillary. [though animosity does get closer to what I begin to feel toward supporters like you who tiresomely choose to attack and interpret others rather than relate to others' preferences and facts.] Error #2 is a much more serious one, in my book, and that is your seque to 'Hill & Bill'. Um, Hillary is the candidate we are examining. If Bill were actually able to run, I would be solidly behind him. But, he is not running, and Hill is no Bill.

But, hey, I applaud you for limiting yourself to that one erroneous segue that gave you your opening to then just write about Bill in the rest of your commenting. You didn't use the other common erroneous segue I find among Hillary die-hards, which is to segue to some variant of 'well, she's so much better than the guy now in office'......as though she is running against Bush.

So, to sum up. Neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush are candidates for the presidency. And people who can think for themselves are exercising that right which is not the same as expressing animosity. dschungu, if you can grasp what I am saying, you might become a more effective advocate.

colonpowwow wrote on September 26, 2007 8:44 AM:

oleeb

Aren't you the one who was ranting on these boards last week about some kind of media conspiracy to boycott news about the Obama campaign and TPM was sucked in to doing this, and Hillary was somehow responsible?

It is my lifelong ambition to someday be as concise in my perceptions as you think you are.

Thanks for the criticisms against the poster (me). It does make the Hillary haters and sore losers happy. They can use your kind of balm(bast).

Be well.

Anonymous wrote on September 26, 2007 9:52 AM:

anonynon wrote: "The problem with the Hillaryites is their vast and unrelenting paranoia. Most of the posts here are simple observations which do not constitute attacks of any kind."

Here are a few simple observations on Hillary from some of the posters here on this thread alone:

"A freaking disaster in slow motion."

"Sen Clinton would drive me to consider voting for the GOP candidate for the first time in my life."

"Uninformed [in my opinion] female voters know her name and like the idea of a woman in the Presidency."

"Hillary is more of an archit4echt (sic) of this war than any of the republican nominees."

"Bush followed up his RodHam Victory Memo, sending backchannel advice to Sen. Brunhilde on how to stay in Iraq."

"she is the second coming of Michael Dukakis."

"It is precisely that attitude that puts off so many people about Hillary herself and her supporters in particular. Which is a nice way to say they are nothing if not insufferable."

"Hillary Clinton makes me shudder continuously."

"I simply cannot trust her."

"I believe that only the Democratic party is dumb enough to nominate Hillary. "

"HC is a product of the DLC, she is packaged, primped and prepared by her corporate handlers and, having met and heard her many a time, she is about as believable as the idiot in the WH."

This is just a small sampling of some of the simple observations right here on this single thread from the non-Hillary bashers who only point out facts to us tiresome, vicious (is that Vicious with a capital "V"?) idiots who support her.

Sorry, I stand corrected and humbled.

dcshungu wrote on September 26, 2007 11:06 AM:

In just the one sentence I quoted, you erred at least twice. Error #1 is the erroneous label of 'animosity' which you place upon fact-based non-preference re: Hillary. [though animosity does get closer to what I begin to feel toward supporters like you who tiresomely choose to attack and interpret others rather than relate to others' preferences and facts.]

DonnaG, I can just feel your love oozing for HRC. LOL. I wish you would not love her so much...!

Error #2 is a much more serious one, in my book, and that is your seque to 'Hill & Bill'. Um, Hillary is the candidate we are examining. If Bill were actually able to run, I would be solidly behind him. But, he is not running, and Hill is no Bill.

I segued nothing, and you would be wise to follow the threads before you pontificate. I was simply responding to a poster who'd lumped 'Hill & Bill' into a single candidate for the Republican nomination of the Democratic party (got that?):

Murdoch supports Hillary, because he is hoping history will repeat itself. His reasonable hope is that Hill & Bill can not only turn back the rising tide of reform, but also get rid of a Democratic congress through their now famous triangulation. Murdoch reasons they did it once before, they can do it again. His motives are clear and the media won't bite the man who feeds them...that would be Murdoch...so if anybody gets within reach of the Hill & Bill re-run, expect to see more stories like the Edwards hair story. Or the Obama...is he black enough? Get it? The press is telling everybody Edwards is a f.. and Obama is a n...... And where's Hillary? Defending Democrats left and right? Oh no, Hill & Bill are smiling like Cheshire cats, have you ever seen either defend a Democrat besides themselves? Not old "stab 'em in the back Bill & Hill"

Yeah, Hill & Bill will get a free ride, they're good for Republicans.

See the animosity? With that, I will conclude that you failed to make a case and move on...

d4good wrote on September 26, 2007 11:26 AM:

Anonymous above come across hauntingly like colonpowow so that is who this is directed toward:

Your reaction and that of many Hillary supporters to criticism is almost exactly the way Republicans react to criticism. That bothers me. Criticism is never easy to take, but it isn't the same thing as an attack. You simply have to face a couple of truths which are:

#1. There are lots of people, including Democrats, who just don't like or trust your candidate and that isn't going to change. Whether that is fair or not is debatable. That they feel this way about Hillary is not debatable. This is an instance where you have a right to your own opinion but not your own facts. She is disliked by many for a whole variety of reasons. One need not be a "Hillary Basher" to hold these opinions. Period.

#2. Pointing out what one believes to be the weaknesses and potential problems with a candidate in one's own party is what primaries are all about. All the hysterical reactions from Hillary's supporters to such discussion is childish to say the least. You have to accept that not everyone is going to agree with you and that when they say something you don't like it isn't necessarily an attack on your beloved candidate.

colonpowwow wrote on September 26, 2007 12:21 PM:

d4good

Yes, anonymous posting was accidental, but your identification correct.

Yes, I am unable to face your version of the truth. It's okay to not like or support the Democratic frontrunner for the weighty reasons I listed in my "anonymous" posting. Yes, there are only opinions and facts. Mine are opinions and yours are facts. I am hysterical (you really ought to be careful using this adjective IMHNotFact. I am childish.

Thanks for addressing the issues. I am chastened by your piercing insights.

Anonymous wrote on September 26, 2007 12:49 PM:

dfriend wrote on September 25, 2007 10:59 PM:
kjoe,

TPM had a post on the GQ story yesterday if I'm not mistaken.

Please help me find the tpm take on the killing of the GQ story about Hillary's campaign. I cannot find anything.

kjoe wrote on September 26, 2007 12:51 PM:

dfriend wrote on September 25, 2007 10:59 PM:
kjoe,

TPM had a post on the GQ story yesterday if I'm not mistaken.

Please help me find the tpm take on the killing of the GQ story about Hillary's campaign. I cannot find anything.

Anonymous wrote on September 26, 2007 9:57 PM:

A new President traditionally enjoys a 'honeymoon' for several months following Inauguration, but if Hillary wins, the Repubs will never allow her a 'honeymoon'. Right from the get-go, there will be confrontation. On the other hand, if another person (any other person) is elected, there is a lot of legislation which could be passed during this honeymoon period. That's the reason I would support any Dem but Hillary.

PollM wrote on September 27, 2007 11:36 AM:

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

Who do you believe won the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Debate? -------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=597

.

Hillary_is_insane wrote on September 27, 2007 1:41 PM:

Hillary intends on invading Iran. She is Bush lite. Who needs another best "Republician President" as Alan Greenspan called Bill Clinton. I want a big D Democrat as President not a Nixonesqe, paranoid like Hillary as President. Her insane laugh is scary. Her support of continuing the Iraq war and spreading it to Iran is scary. We need a Goldwater moment. 1..2..3..boom!

Post a comment

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