is that cause 50% of the respondents have been publicly cheated on?

Well, HRC *does* have a likeability problem. It's just not one that everyone else isn't going to have after a few months of right-wing vituperation.

Yeah. Great info. From a Fox News poll. And HRC just happens to be the preferred Democratic candidate of the GOP-- which just happens to be the preferred party of Fox News.

This is a public forum. Before making a comment such that publicly, please inform yourself or you come out sounding stupid to those of us who do our homework. For your edification, let's look at the poll's internals and you will see (I hope) why your statement that And HRC just happens to be the preferred Democratic candidate of the GOP is not very smart at all. In fact, if you look closely, Greg Sargent's caveat is not really a caveat. HRC looks impressively strong. Let's go to the numbers!

Identity with:

Candidate Yes No
--------- --- --
Hillary Clinton 45% 48
Democrats 75% 18
Republicans 11% 85
Independents 41% 48

Barack Obama 41% 43
Democrats 57% 28
Republicans 27% 56
Independents 37% 48

Rudy Giuliani 43% 43
Democrats 21% 65
Republicans 70% 16
Independents 43% 47

Point #1: Note that a whopping 85% of Repubs DO NOT identify with HRC (surprise there), therefore you CANNOT possibly make the canard that HRC just happens to be the preferred Democratic candidate of the GOP stick!!! Duh... This should lay to rest the latest talking point that the Repubs are rooting for HRC to win the Dem nomination. Poppycock. They are terrified of her!

Point #2: This is where the pundits and wingnuts' claim about HRC's purportedihigh negatives goes to pots... Full 75% of Dems identify with HRC (only 57% with Obama) and 41% of Independents Identify with her (37% with Obama). Conclusion: Since the wide majority of those who do not identify with HRC are Repubs, the 48% 'negative' in this poll (Greg's caveat)is really meaningless and inflated, as it is made up primarily of Repubs, most of whom would never vote for her anyway!

Point #3: Across the board, HRC is much stronger than Obama (who has stalled), and running neck and neck with Rudy. Too bad Edwards was not included but he seems to be the one-state (IA) candidate of this election.

This snapshot in time shows that the most electable Dem candidate (by far) is HRC, and at this point, he'd beat the Repub front-runner. I have said this repeatedly: HRC's so-called high negatives is a myth, a creation of the MSM and wingnuts. Clearly the regular Dem and Independent voters out there do not buy that all (someone forgot to tell them about it)! As for the Repubs, we can be sure that 35-40% of them (the same % that has stuck with Bush no matter how much he has screwed up the country) would not vote for HRC or a Dem anyway, so we can count them out. Having said that, there is NO credible evidence that suggests that HRC could not be elected POTUS. The electoral calculus -- especially since she will claim all the big, electoral vote-rich states -- are on her side.

Please poke holes into the preceding analysis, but please give facts and figures and not just "how you feel" about it.

Why is everyone overlooking that second figure -- the 48% who do not really relate to Hillary, a far bigger number than any other candidate? That's always going to be her biggest problem.

In any event, there's not all that big of a spread in these things. I say meaningless.

For what it is worth: here's some hearsay: My twin sister who worked for the Heritage Foundation and remains deeply connected told me in the last election the Republicans wanted Kerry, do anything to get him on the ticket, had to crush Dean. Now, contrary to popular belief, as much as she loathes Guiliani, she says he is their only hope and he can beat anyone but Hillary. She's states their worst fears are really Edwards if elected based on idealogy, but she states they no longer worry about him as he doesn't stand a chance of getting the nomination and will be the most easily smeared in the general election as he is the biggest enemy of the corporate media, they wouldn't even have to work on Edwards, the media would smear him a la Gore. (ABE is the anyone but Edwards acronym she used). She states that they all hope for an Obama surge, because Hillary is considered unbeatable by Republican insiders. She also stated that all on her side hope Democrats think the Republicans want Hillary so they will nominate Obama.

I used to read TPM and Election Central first thing every morning and check in throughout the day. I even gave an admittedly trivial donation when TPM was expanding and asking for free money. Now I rarely come here. I'm only here this morning because I'm looking for some info on Richardson and since I'm still familiar with the site I hope to be able to find it quickly. But Greg's latest pro-Hillary headline caught my attention so I decided to waste a bit of my time.

How did I go from enthusiastic reader to couldn't-care-less-TPM-exists? Greg's pro-Hillary bias. Look at this poll. Hillary polls as the candidate people can and cannot relate to the most. What's the headline? Does it even mention this dichotomy? Of course not. The pro-Hillary side of the equation gets a screaming headline and the anti-Hillary side of the equation gets a footnote.

And now several of the pro-Hillary folks will reply with rude, condescending comments that I'll never read. They'll call me names, call my candidate (Obama) names, and vilify me. Enjoy.

Now, contrary to popular belief, as much as she loathes Guiliani, she says he is their only hope and he can beat anyone but Hillary.

I am not sure how much your sister is well-connected in the GOP politics but that statement alone gives a lot of weight to what she said. I have been puzzled by Rudy's strength nationally, in the South, and among the Christian right, considering his past social liberalism: pro-gays, anti-gun, pro-abortion, and the list goes...

Her statement is also consistent with the latest post on TPM-EC about how Rudy is leading among the social conservatives. Strange but it gives credence to the notion that they consider Rudy as their strongest candidate. He trails HRC in NY every in poll because we, New Yorkers, know them both very well and know who would be the better POTUS...so, take it from us and vote for the right candidate!

Gotta go...

Now I rarely come here. I'm only here this morning because I'm looking for some info on Richardson and since I'm still familiar with the site I hope to be able to find it quickly. But Greg's latest pro-Hillary headline caught my attention so I decided to waste a bit of my time.

Please keep coming back to TPM-EC because who knows? Maybe your candidate[s] will give Greg something uplifting to write about...and I am sure you wouldn't want to miss that.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

LJ

I agree with you about the constant pro-Hillary headlines. I think Hillary bought this site because Greg, Kleefeld and the rest of the folks push her talking points and spin all headlines to make her sound as if she is the inevitable candidate.

All of which is undemocratic for a political site that is supposedly appealing to Democrats. TPM-EC, is no longer my first stop either.

I was hoping that during the primary season we would be able to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of all the candidates but this site simply turned into a Hillaryfest all the time 24/7.

I am now an infrequent visitor, as well.

The Hillary trolls are the worse, gqmartinez, pacc, dschunga, colonpowwow...just nauseating.

I have noticed the precipitous drop off in commentary since the new format change. I suspect many people feel like you and I.

I think that is why they link to HuffPo now to keep up the hits at the site. Traffic and commentary has seen a significant dropoff.

Even Huffpo has pro-Hillary headlines and anti-Barack like TPM-EC...perhaps that was part of the deal.

Well Greg Sargent's about as subtle as a train wreck

Good luck to you Greg in that White House internship!

Meanwhile entirely missing from these pages, one of the biggest political gatherings in New York history - that according to the New York Times

O! Army Invades Billary Hill
24,000 Hear Obama Draw Sharp Distinction's on Brunehilde's Turf

And I can report that California is getting ready to rumble. We've set up the first statewide organization outside the early states and are opening our NoCali office on Sunday. In our district alone we have over 8,000 volunteer contacts, over 100,000 Statewide

Held our first CD8 Campaign Council meeting last night..Pretty nifty shit

elrapierwit wrote on September 28, 2007 1:16 PM

I agree with you about the constant pro-Hillary headlines. I think Hillary bought this site because Greg, Kleefeld and the rest of the folks push her talking points and spin all headlines to make her sound as if she is the inevitable candidate.

This sounds like sour-grapes to me. Your whole rant, in fact, proves TPM-EC's impartiality. Just have the candidate you are supporting improve his numbers or shake up this race and you'll see what I mean.

FYI: I had predicted that after her Sunday Talk show blitz, HRC's "favorability" would increase dramatically and that is what we are now seeing. The voters got to see and hear her unfiltered by the MSN and wingnut's noise machine, and every time that has happened, she has done well. But this is just the beginning. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Please do not let the door hit you on your way out. BTW: Regarding Huffpo: I have never read any posts by Arianna Huffington that were pro-HRC. Initially her posts were all negative (the site seemed pro-Obama to me but that was just me; I still go there regularly although I was turned off by the delay they impose on the posting of new comments so I did not comment much there), but lately, maybe be sensing the "inevitability", she has not written much about HRC. HRC is doing well because she has thus far run an incredibly discipline campaign. It is not because she got helped by the press, netroots (!), or bloggers. She is doing well in spite of them...really.

Sen. Barack Obama will lay out plan to overhaul the criminal justice system at a speech at Howard University this afternoon focused on racial disparities. According to a draft of the speech released this morning, he will reach back to the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s and more recently to the thousands who marched in Jena, La., protesting what they view as the overly harsh prosecution of six black high school students charged with beating a white classmate unconscious.

In part, the draft reads like the kind of fiery speech Obama might have given as a community organizer in black neighborhoods of Chicago. "Like Katrina did with poverty, Jena exposed glaring inequities in our justice system that were around long before that schoolyard fight broke out. It reminds us of the fact that we have a system that locks away too many young, first-time, non-violent offenders for the better part of their lives--a decision that's made not by a judge in a courtroom, but by politicians in Washington. It reminds us that we have certain sentences that are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like and where you come from."

The Jena march, which was initiated on college campuses and through black radio, has underscored issues of race and criminal justice, with all of the top-tier Democratic candidates weighing in on the events in Jena.

Obama initially took heat from civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson for being too slow to address the Jena case, telling a reporter at The State newspaper in South Carolina that the senator was "acting like he's white." Jackson, who is an Obama supporter, later said he did not recall making the comment.

Obama's plan also addresses equal employment law and an overhaul of the Justice Department, saying he will rid the department of "ideologues and political cronies." And he will talk about expanding the use of drug courts for non-violent offenders and ending the discrepancy between the minimum sentences for powder cocaine and crack, which is subject to a stiffer penalty.

Dave, (at 11:56 am) I am scandalized by some information --well, an opinion -- that you passed on from your sister, who sounds very knowledgeable about national politics. “he (Edwards) doesn't stand a chance of getting the nomination and will be the most easily smeared in the general election as he is the biggest enemy of the corporate media, they wouldn't even have to work on Edwards, the media would smear him a la Gore.” I am hoping that the draft Gore grassroots movement will be successful. However, if not and if the corporations are against Edwards, then he is my candidate of choice. I will not vote for someone who is owned by the corporations and/or AIPAC. From what I am reading on the Internet, that seems to be the case with Hillary. If not, please anyone enlighten me with evidence. In addition, or perhaps connected, Hillary just voted for the continued funding of the war and voted Yea on the Lieberman-Kyle amendment paving the way for Cheney/Bush to bomb Iran and get us into a quagmire from which we will not recover as a country as we have known it.

In my opinion, we could have confidence and pride in the leadership of our country with a Gore/Kucinich ticket -- although i would be quite satisfied with Gore/Obama or anyone else Gore chooses.

Hillary is not inevitable. A recent NH poll showed 55% could easily change their mind on a candidate; primary voters are still shopping. Poll after poll, if one is willing to listen, prove that voters make up their minds in the last 10 days before an election.

I intend to work for my preferred candidate right down to the last vote cast in the last primary. I suggest some of you push away from the keyboard and go do the same. It is healthier.