Gallup: Obama And Hillary Tied — Nationally!
Barack Obama's Iowa bounce isn't just happening in New Hampshire — it's now in the national polling, too. The new Gallup poll shows that he and Hillary Clinton are tied nationwide, after Hillary had previously held big leads throughout 2007. Here are the numbers, compared to the last poll in mid-December:
Obama 33% (+6)
Clinton 33% (-12)
Edwards 20% (+5)
Comments (53)
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:40 PM:That has to ouch.
sunsin wrote on January 7, 2008 4:43 PM:Obama is the greatest possible F-U to Bush and the Bush years in the field. That alone will carry him through.
moondancer wrote on January 7, 2008 4:44 PM:Talk about a paper tiger. I cannot recall a collapse so total, so quickly with the subject doing nothing wrong.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:44 PM:All the graphs show that after becoming a front runner the candidate drops off, that has this as more positive for Huckabee and Edwards than Rudy or Hillary, when you stop and think how this was being spun a month ago.
frankly0 wrote on January 7, 2008 4:44 PM:Remember, Momentum is a fickle God.
Hillary might easily be one momentum changing event from turning this right back in her favor.
We'll see.
Michael A wrote on January 7, 2008 4:45 PM:Well, if the other nationwide polls have them tied, she may be done after new hampshire, if she loses by double digits. Ouch.
grover_rover wrote on January 7, 2008 4:48 PM:@franklyO
One momentum changing event like her losing NH as well, followed by a loss in SC? Yeahh, after Obama continues knocking her out over and over again things will only get worse for her and better for him.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:58 PM:I didn't think Clinton could stoop this low, but she's now dismissing MLK as just a talker, not a doer.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_and_Obama_Johnson_and_King.html
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 5:00 PM:Moondancer- Don't forget the media that has beat her senseless and spun this as a contributing factor either, not defending her, just saying. I've watched non-stop and being told over and over again that Hillary is falling apart, et al and the world loves Obama has an impact.
Now, no matter the nominee it's still going to be close and they steal elections. Who was treated better by the media Bush or Gore, Bush or Kerry? Prepare people, Obama has it coming and good.
Huckabee up is good news though, we'd have months of Obama trashing and McCain gushing if that's our nominees. The media is a tool of the right wing and pay attention to who their Dem nominee darling is, it ain't Hillary.
I'm sticking with the forgotten.
nogo war wrote on January 7, 2008 5:02 PM:Yep Obama and Clinton..
They do have ties...
Obama response to Katrina
..after all who better to give you a glimpse of NOLA than a Bush and a
Clinton..reach across and forget the 9th ward.
http://obama.senate.gov/statement/050906-statement_of_senator_barack_obama_on_hurricane_katrina_relief_efforts/
and for your HRC supporters?
Of course this is where the Democratic party is headed..and who does not believe the road to victory is through here?
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137
As for us loser Edwards folks..
All I can offer is this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sBpBouaDXk
,,,and this, from another really rich guy who hasn't forgotten where he came from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYsSVNl8xmE
MLK shamed the politicians into finally doing the right thing. Without MLK putting his life on the line against the Racist fascists, who now have a home in the Republican party, the politicians would not have done anything. Hillary sounds like she still has a lot of that Republican Goldwater Girl in her. Barry Goldwater, at the time Hillary supported him, was totally against the civil rights bill that ended segregation.
Me wrote on January 7, 2008 5:27 PM:Why are you displaying the Pollster poll that shows her with a significant lead?
http://www.pollster.com/08-US2-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Paula wrote on January 7, 2008 5:40 PM:Obama dos not have the experience to be the next President of the United States. He speaks and aspires hope. But he has accomplished nothing and he has not explained how he will accomplish anything. WAKE UP DEMOCRATS! He is a great guy that is NOT experienced enough to be President. Right now, HE IS JUST SELLING BOATS IN THE DESERT! Please pick a candidate that can WIN the Presidency and not just the Democratic ticket! A candidate that can hold their own, not only with charisma, but true accomplishments, against the Republican candidate. Vote for Obama when he has the experience to match his speech. He will be ready in the next election. But right now, VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT THAT WILL WIN THE PRESIDENCY! PLEASE!!
Mark F wrote on January 7, 2008 5:43 PM:This race is now completely out of Hillary's hands. For her to turn this thing around, Obama would have to royally screw up (or be royally Swiftboated). She's said everything she has to say. She's made her pitch. There's nothing left for her but weepy diner speeches and bitter claims that she isn't getting a fair shake from the press. For Hillary, it's all downhill from here.
Mark F wrote on January 7, 2008 5:51 PM:Paula: Barack Obama IS the Democrat who will win the presidency. Hillary no longer has a chance. Give it up. It's over. She's toast. T. O. A. S. TOAST. Maybe she can try again when she's 68.
Sue wrote on January 7, 2008 5:53 PM:Paula
You must be a strong Bush supporter with all his "experience"
loki's girl is toast
Les wrote on January 7, 2008 5:55 PM:nogo war
wouldn't it be eaiser to make your argument more precise and to the point.
beleive me ,no one hooks up to your links
vonrking wrote on January 7, 2008 5:58 PM:All these people talking about Hillary's experience ask yourself, if Hillary's experience isn't enough to prevent a total collapse after losing in Iowa (a campaign not the presidency)what the hell good is it.
Michael A wrote on January 7, 2008 6:11 PM:It really is pathetic. Every time I have some sympathy for this woman, she up and does something else to p*ss me off. Dissing King??????? Out-freaking-rageous. It is really, really disgusting. She is doing more harm than good for the democratic party and mr. bill's legacy. Once she gets slaughtered in nh, she should just get out of the race. She is losing by 20 points in sc and it will only get worse. She will be totally embarrassed and in the meantime she will be doing stupid things like dissing king and mr. bill dissing mandela earlier today. What are these people thinking???????????
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 6:26 PM:And she begins to play the race card:
Clinton and Obama, Johnson and King
Clinton rejoined the running argument over hope and "false hope" in an interview in Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox's Major Garrett that while Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the one who got the legislation passed.
Hillary was asked about Obama's rejoinder that there's something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes as false, and that it doesn't jibe with the careers of figures like like John F. Kennedy and King.
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done."
Clinton didn't explicitly compare herself to Johnson, or Obama to King. But it seems an odd example for the argument between rhetoric and action, as there's little doubt which figure's place in history and the American imagination is more secure.
"The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president" capable of action, Clinton said.
The interview was taped, and I listened in. It's set to air later today.
Michael A, what bull, and a false argument, Hillary is the last hope your party has to have as President in 08. Just because the country wants Bush Cheney behind bars and the partisan primary voters believe this is a personality contest for cult sect leader and who has the best marketing pitch for unifier not divider this election season, the rest of us are looking for a competent capable effective ethical leader not a guy with no record and 2 years experience at the national level, sorry you groupies believe what you want you are wrong so often Donkeys are stubborn for sure.
Optimus Prime wrote on January 7, 2008 6:54 PM:Wow, I'm stunned about that MLK thing. Smooth move, Hilary.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 7:20 PM:Wow, Pepp, as an all-but-admitted GOPer, you really have plenty of credibility.
DonnaG wrote on January 7, 2008 7:37 PM:I am getting angry about the meme that Obama has no record of achievement. Here is a link from 2006 and refers to Obama's first year and a half in the US Senate:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html
Pay attention, Paula, lest you continue to spread your lie about Obama about him having no achievements under his belt, and pay attention, Pepp, you who say he has no record.
If either of you actually read that web page account, and if either of you follow the news, you will know that Obama actually has accomplished more in his three years as a Senator than Hillary has done in her seven years as a Senator. The work he did with Coburn is now law, as well as other nationally critical work he did with Lugar and Feingold.
And, before he was a US Senator, he spent years in the Illinois Senate, where, among other achievements, he passed a number of difficult and important legislation. Fact is, Obama actually increased health care coverage for vulnerable folks, while Clinton failed at the same.
Democrats should be applauding the rapid fall of HRC. She is this year's John Kerry, the seemingly electable "safe" choice who is in reality an equivocating dud with no charm, lots of baggage and a good shot to lose in a general.
She doesn't inspire the base, won't win over independents, will be unable to attract new voters, and, most importantly, can't effectively attack a Republican opponent on the war in Iraq, just as Kerry couldn't, because she authorized the thing.
It's not "momentum."
It's that Hillary's support was always soft, predicated on inevitability. It's that her campaign was built on a house of cards, while Obama built a strong foundation on issues and consistancy.
And the Clinton/DLC record stinks.
Now voters are waking up and realizing they have a choice and that Obama is a strong and popular leader who has been correct on one issue after another, for the middle class, before it was popular.
NCSteve wrote on January 7, 2008 7:43 PM:Paula wrote on January 7, 2008 5:40 PM:Obama dos not have the experience to be the next President of the United States. He speaks and aspires hope. But he has accomplished nothing and he has not explained how he will accomplish anything. WAKE UP DEMOCRATS! He is a great guy that is NOT experienced enough to be President. Right now, HE IS JUST SELLING BOATS IN THE DESERT! Please pick a candidate that can WIN the Presidency and not just the Democratic ticket! A candidate that can hold their own, not only with charisma, but true accomplishments, against the Republican candidate. Vote for Obama when he has the experience to match his speech. He will be ready in the next election. But right now, VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT THAT WILL WIN THE PRESIDENCY! PLEASE!!
Oh my God! The scales have fallen from my eyes and I'm now firmly in Hillary's camp! Damn, if only I had seen this argument before I donated money to Obama.
poetry wrote on January 7, 2008 8:20 PM:Uh-oh.
When Obama was in the Illinois senate ...
... [healthcare] insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the [healthcare] bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides, according to lobbyists, Senate staff, and Obama's remarks on the Senate floor.
By the time the [healthcare] legislation passed the Senate, in May 2004, Obama had written three successful amendments, at least one of which made key changes FAVORABLE to INSURERS.
Lobbyists praised Obama for taking the insurance industry's concerns into consideration.
And what about insuring all Americans, not just the lucky ones?
...Obama approached the Campaign for Better Health Care with insurers' concerns, asking if the group would consider a LESS STRINGENT MANDATE than requiring the state to come up with a UNIVERSAL healthcare plan.
...Obama later watered down the bill after hearing from insurers ...
[Obama] acknowledged that he had "worked diligently WITH the INSURANCE INDUSTRY," as well as Republicans, to LIMIT the legislation's REACH and noted that the bill had undergone a "complete restructuring" after INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES "legitimately" raised fears that it would result in a single-payer system. "The original presentation of the bill was the House version that we radically changed - we radically changed - and we changed in response to concerns that were raised by the insurance industry," Obama said, according to the session transcript.
... Obama also collected money from the insurance industry and its lobbyists for his successful US Senate campaign in 2004.
(emphasis added)
-- from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/?page=1
I guess the insurance lobbyists would have a prominent seat at the table when President Obama writes healthcare legislation that won't cover all Americans, just the lucky ones. Maybe the unlucky ones will just try not to get sick.
Until now, the media kids have decided to let Obama have a pass, but that might not be the case once Obama is perceived as the front-runner.
Not writing as a partisan of any of the three Dem front-runners, I still have to ask. Is it an editorial policy of this web site to never speak of Edwards? Or has everyone here at TPM decided this is already a 2-way race, with Hillary fast fading into the horizon?
Just asking...
James
Joe Lisboa wrote on January 7, 2008 8:31 PM:Martin X nails it at 7:37. Bravo.
bart wrote on January 7, 2008 9:43 PM:This is amusing:
"Republicans should be happy Canadians can't vote"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080107.wuspoll0107/BNStory/Front
"In a hypothetical presidential election between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney, respondents favoured Mr. Obama 49 per cent to 11. And if only Conservatives voted, Mr. Obama would still have won by a 50-17 margin."
Can you say P-A-N-I-C?
david wrote on January 7, 2008 9:54 PM:Seems pretty obvious to me that:
(1) Obama will win by large margins tomorrow
(2) Once Obama wins tomorrow, the culinary union in NV will endorse him and he will easily win NV
(3) He will then win by even larger margins in SC.
(4) This momentum will make it impossible for Hillary and John to raise any more $$ unless they can prove they can win
Question for the Clintonites on this thread:
Will you support Barack after he puts it out of reach tomorrow?
Brian wrote on January 7, 2008 10:30 PM:Clinton believes that she is the better candidate for President because of something she was born with (her gender).
It is exactly that type of thinking that has plagued America for the past 200 years or so.
"david" asks: "Question for the Clintonites on this thread: Will you support Barack after he puts it out of reach tomorrow?"
No, of course not, and that's a silly question.
I support Hillary because I believe she is the best candidate in a field of very good candidates. And I will continue to support her candidacy as long as she is a candidate. If someone else wins the Democratic nomination, I will support him and will do so enthusiastically and fully.
And that is what makes me very different from the Hillary-haters posting here -- who remind me of nothing so much as the people we have seen in photographs who used to go to lynchings in the south to cheer, smile and laugh. Some here think it is great sport to wish bad luck to another Democrat and to enjoy that person's suffering, and that makes me doubt those posters are even Democrats; maybe they are really rightwingers coming here to do their sick, destructive thing.
I think it is beyond disgusting the glee some here feel that Hillary is having a difficult period. If that were happening to some Democrat who was not my first choice, I would never feel gleeful -- I would feel sad for that person.
Important points by DonnaG and Martin X. I moved toward Hillary after Obama faltered in the early debates, but he has been improving phenomenally as a candidate. Anyone paying attention to what he did on the ground in Iowa along with his solid, 'presidential' debate performance in New Hampshire should see that he CAN WIN THE GENERAL. Indeed, I think Hillary's 'collapse' (which is really happening because of Obama's strength) is saving us from her becoming the Kerry of 2008 (the seemingly 'safe' candidate for Dems).
moondancer says that he or she cannot recall a candidate crumpling so swiftly having done nothing wrong (which is debatable).
I have a three word answer: Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.
enough wrote on January 7, 2008 10:57 PM:There are other candidates not tarred and feathered by their devotion to the Democratic leadership. Kucinich. Richardson. Both shut out by all the media. Edwards hardly gets a close look, even though his policies are far more progressive than the two frontrunners--let alone McCain and Romney et. al. It's a crime that Dodd and Biden dropped out so soon. Why do we allow Iowa and NH to pick our winning candidates? Because we allow Iowa and NH to pick our winners. And TPM needs to go back to journalism school for ignoring the others.
David wrote on January 7, 2008 11:00 PM:I didn't think so.
And if you want to know why there are so many people out here who can't stand the thought of Hillary as President and may be exhibiting a bit of schaudenfreude (sp?), just look at the way her surrogates have attacked Obama on his religion, his activities as a youth, and his (correct) thoughts about Iraq. As a frontrunner one would have thought she would have run a classy campaign. But no, she made the decision to take it into the gutter. That is not leadership and that behavior does not command respect.
America is sick of the polarization that has plagued this country for the last 10 years and is desperately seeking new leadership. Hillary possesses a self-inflated amount of experience and no capability to inspire and lead. On the other hand, Barack Obama is the most exciting politician to come around in decades. He is smart, articulate, respectful, and possesses a true capability to lead and bring this country together.
Cheney and Rumsfeld have proven that it's not about experience. It is about leadership, character and judgement.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 11:05 PM:Is it an editorial policy of this web site to never speak of Edwards?
Believe it or not, the bloggers here covered nearly everything that Edwards and Trippi said on the day after Iowa and talked about Edwards' debate performance extensively. If Obama and Clinton are getting more attention it is because there is more to report about them, but no one is ignoring Edwards.
Is there something in particular you would have liked to see mentioned? Now is your chance to educate us.
Barb wrote on January 7, 2008 11:07 PM:I thought her academy award performance this morning was apropos of Hillary the person, her campaign, and the type of leader she would be: phony and disingenuous. It was amazing how she went from tears to attack dog in the span of minutes. Gimme a break. Great leaders are steady and unflappable. Go back to the Senate Hillary.
DG wrote on January 8, 2008 12:21 AM:Perhaps the only thing more gratifying than seeing Obama win is seeing all of the politicos scrambling to try and spin it into insignificance. Deal with it you dinosaurs, the world has changed, and phonies like Hilary are on their way out.
profusion wrote on January 8, 2008 12:23 AM:Let's face it - Hilary is just W without an accent and better hair. I am SO glad people have seen through her and her BS.
correctnotright wrote on January 8, 2008 12:25 AM:Obama is a lot more experienced in foreign policy than Bush was. He was a legislator in Illinois for years.
The bigger question about Obama is not hsi experience (Lincoln had less experience for example), it is his judgement and acumen.
I like Edwards - but he wilted in the Vice presidential debate against cheney. He also voted for the AUMF for the Iraq war. He says it was a mistake - but Obama came out strongly for the common sense view - Iraq was not a threat to the US.
The bottom line is the Edwards is weak on foreign policy and strong on domestic policy. Hillary also voted for AUMF for the Iraq war. She claims it wasn't a mistake.
Who exercised the best judgement? Who will make the best decisions? Experience is worth nothing if it doesn't translate into wisdom. Rumsfeld and cheney have more experience than any of the candidates - yet they had the hubris to ruin us financially, cause thousands of deaths and lose the respect of the world.
Experience is overated - give me wisdom and intelligence and questioning anytime.
Amber wrote on January 8, 2008 1:39 AM:I'm shocked at the absence of the vitriolic cheerleading for Hillary chock full of spin and attacks on Senator Obama in the comment sections on TPM lately. The stories about Hillary's camp being "scared" must really be true. I think maybe the reality-based world has been too tough the past few days for the Clintons and their followers. It has been obvious that Hillary will never be president for some time now.
As far as this whole experience thing goes, everybody really needs to get over it. It's discounting the thin experience for decades of presidents in unforeseen problems they've faced. That's what a top-knotch staff is for (something our current presidents most certainly lacks).
Bill Clinton was attacked mercilessly for his lack of foreign policy experience before (and during) his first term. Judgement, vision, and intellectual ability and a host of other qualities are far more important. I have no doubt that any of the field of candidates would bring in the contemporary "best and brightest" (although the dreadful Mark Penn situation in Hillary camp certainly puts up a few question marks).
More than anything, the experience criticism should be null and void in assessing the Democratic field. The Democrats running for president have an integrity, honesty and grip on reality that the current Bush Administration does not. You don't have to look any further than the White House now and the president to see the glaring incompetence, detachment from reality, poor judgement and dishonesty that any Democratic candidate would sweep out of there upon simply taking a step in.
More than anything, it's the decisions that the president makes with help though work from a crack staff. I don't think there's any doubt that wisdom and intelligence trump experience and Abraham Lincoln would agree.
All that matters is that Secretary of State Biden or any other cabinet member has the experience and, wisdom and intelligence to help our next president make informed, intelligent decisions.
Correctnotright has lived up to his pen name.
Jordan wrote on January 8, 2008 1:48 AM:I think it is beyond disgusting the glee some here feel that Hillary is having a difficult period. If that were happening to some Democrat who was not my first choice, I would never feel gleeful -- I would feel sad for that person.
Right, but there's more at stake than "one person['s]" plight and how sad that person must feel. I voted for HRC and she's been terrifying and infuriating me for years. The thought of a 2008 in which Clinton is the Democratic Presidential Nominee is unbearable to be; unbearable if she wins OR if she loses. If she wins we're (possibly) spared the worst, except that she's incompetent, inconsistent, disingenuous, badly organized and personally unpleasant to listen to. Watching her coast for months on a vague, deceptive campaign, her husband's reputation and a lazy press corps (while obviously being shielded from the true force of Right Wing vitriol that would be unleashed the moment she's been safely ensconced as the candidate, McGovern-style) I DO enjoy seeing her suffer. Many, many people have suffered because of HRC (not only the ones whose limbs were blown off in Baghdad etc.) and she deserves the take-down. I'd say it right to her face: I'm GLAD she's suffering the comeuppance of her prematurely-terminated coast to a doomed nomination. I WANT her to suffer. Attempting to play the American people that cynically is supposed to hurt you.
southpaw wrote on January 8, 2008 2:22 AM:re; all the comments about HRC "dissing" MLK---
While it may seem awkward to be comparing LBJ and MLK, she is essentially right about her assertion that it took someone with the experience, cajones and political acumen that LBJ possessed at the time to get that legislation passed. But, let's remember, he invoked Kennedy's name as many times as it was necessary to the Northern liberals and middle-of-the-road congressmen and horse traded with the Southerners. He said himself that it would lose the South for the Democratic Party for a long time to come. A combination of factors played into that historic moment: 1) MLK's activism and leadership 2) Kennedy's martyrdom 3) LBJ's "treatment".
Historical analogies are tricky and imperfect...
Roland wrote on January 8, 2008 3:04 AM:I believe in HOPE!
kozmik wrote on January 8, 2008 3:07 AM:poetry wrote on January 7, 2008 10:48 PM:
"And that is what makes me very different from the Hillary-haters posting here"
Wrong. I was prepared to volunteer and donate to Hillary, and even to try as best I could to defend the Clintons' lousy record.
But since Obama got in the race there's no contest. Like Martin X said, she's a lousy candidate and another John Kerry waiting to happen.
If she beat the Republican it would only be becasue Bush has been so awful, and whoever they run will be awful. And after watching her incompetence as a campaigner, there's a strong possibility she could lose, for all the reasons Martin X said. McCain could beat her, and despite his moments of righteousness, he's also a Republican kook on a lot of issues, and would continue most of what's bad about Bush.
I'm hoping I don't have to support Hilary, cause I'm tired of supporting losers. And her loyal supporters should wake up and realize just what a mistake they're making.
I've yet to meet a Clinton supporter who could discuss the Clinton years, and policies like NAFTA, coherently. Most Clinton supporters don;t even know the Clinton legislative record. They're just defending her cause they're used to defending Bill. These people need to snap out of it.
southpaw-
No, LBJ was always against MLK and advising the Kennedys to stay away from him and civil rights. Why? Because of white Southern Dems, who were LBJ's base.
The Kennedy's were Northerners, considered the South mostly lost and trending towards reactionaries and Republicans anyways, and were convinced by MLK to support civil rights. LBJ deeply resented them for it, especially RFK, who he considered and upstart and hated.
JFK sent support to civil rights and MLK, and made it his policy. After the assasination LBJ continued that, but had always been against it. As he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he said he did in honor of JFK beginning that route, he said the South was lost to Dems.
Of course the South was already lost to the National Dem party, which was moving to be more liberal, for civil rights, and so on. What really rubbed LBJ wrong was that it lost his kind of Southern Democrat, sort of a dixiecrat really.
But in the end the Kennedys had more foresight. The South was lost already, and if the North hadn't done something like embrace civil rights, they wouldn't have inspired voters to support them.
Even Nixon was on the civil rights bandwagon just several years later.
But he was elected in large part becasue LBJ was also afraid of ending the Vietnam war, so he kept escalating it. Again, becasue he was afraid of losing politcal support if he withdrew, especially from Southern hawks.
Martin X. wrote on January 8, 2008 4:06 AM:Anyone confused as to why Democrats seem exuberant that HRC is stumbling might want to read David's comment re: her disgraceful and thuggish tactics-- executed by subordinates, naturally-- in the weeks leading up to Iowa.
The Bob Kerrey-channels-Rush Limbaugh stuff was pathetic and desperate. And the attempt to associate Obama with cocaine (Black man = drug dealer! Be afraid!) via Shaheen was loathsome. I'd call this a Rovian smear but it was too strategically inept, rightfully ticking off black voters she needed to hold on to (goodbye SC!).
Liam wrote on January 8, 2008 10:16 AM:Hillary may have the experience. So did Gore and Kerry, but she also has something else in common with them; a lack of charisma. Hillary, like Gore and Kerry, is very stiff and not a natural outgoing person.
We know from past experience that the majority of voters will opt for the "most likable" candidate for President. That is why they rejected Gore and Kerry, and opted twice for a amiable guy without much else to offer. Hillary has run into the charisma wall, and there is nothing she can do about that. She can not obtain a charisma transplant or act as if she had.
People are not going to vote for someone that they do not first have a sense of comfort with. They do with Obama, and not with Hillary. That leaves her with no where to go to find more support beyond her hardcore supporters.
Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 2:01 PM:kosmik-
I know LBJ didn't like MLK (probably had Hoover wiretapping him, IIRC)and he probably thought the best way for him to seal his own legacy was to hitch his wagon to the dead presidents agenda. You are right about the Dixiecrats and the trending away from Dems in the South.
Have to give credit for seeing the light-even if it dovetailed with LBJ's own ego.
Wasn't civil rights legislation stalled in Congress while JFK was alive? It may have gone through eventually (probably)but it still needed LBJs skills to get it through Congress. Don't think it was easy for LBJ personally to know that he was losing his mentor Richard Russell and the South.
While the Kennedy's may have seen this coming (hell, anyone could see this coming after 1957)I think credit should be given to LBJ for trying to hold the South for as long as possible because look at what happened...we still think we need a presidential ticket that has a Notherner and Southerner more often than not.
LBJ was by no means progressive of course-until he became president.
