Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I just completed my new polling averages for May 12th, and I find it extremely frustrating to report that Hillary Clinton's lead has returned to early-March levels:

High-End Estimate
DateClintonObamaEdwardsOther / Unsure
May 1239.026.515.519.0
Apr 3033.530.318.018.2
Apr 1037.822.817.322.1
Mar 1239.026.814.020.2
Mar 0237.824.814.023.4

Low-End Estimate
DateClintonObamaEdwardsOther / Unsure
May 1234.821.813.829.5
Apr 3034.227.016.722.2
Apr 1035.822.015.526.7
Mar 1236.324.812.726.2
Mar 0235.624.011.229.2

As you can see, Clinton's margin over Obama, after shrinking precipitously throughout April, is now virtually identical, and actually slightly larger, to the margin she held in early March. The May12th estimate shows her advantage to be 12.5%-13.0%, while the March 12th estimate showed her ahead 11.5%-12.2%. Also, she is once again virtually the equal of Obama and Edwards combined, trailing only 39.0%-41.0% in the high-end estimate, and 34.8%-35.6% in the low-end estimate. If you don't want to see Hillary Clinton become the nominee, about the only solace you can take from these numbers is that her margin on April 10th was about the same as it is now.

Much more in the extended entry.
These fairly rapid shifts are not simply a function of the polling firms included in the averages at any given point in time. CNN, Gallup and Rasmussen have all shown positive movement favoring Clinton, just as, along with NBC and Cook, they had all shown positive movement favoring Obama and Edwards from April 10-April 30. While her current lead is smaller than it was during the first two weeks of February, when she led by a whopping twenty points, and easily outpaced Edwards and Obama combined, that does not make me feel any better. Even if her lead is not as its all-time high point, it still doesn't feel like it is going anywhere.

What happened in the last two or three weeks? First, I think the debate hurt Obama and Edwards relative to the rest of the non-Clinton field. For a while, those two were the entire non-Clinton field to most Democratic voters, but the debate presented the Democratic rank and file with more options from to choose. Second, Hillary Clinton's support appears to be stronger and have more depth than many have assumed. She has had a long-term, fifteen year history with the Democratic rank and file, which is a barrier all other, "newer" candidates will have a difficult time overcoming.

In the back of my mind, I wonder if Clinton's recent return to the troposphere is partially the fault of the blogosphere not doing its job, as we become embroiled in Edwards vs. Obama inanity. The Politico has an article today arguing that the progressive, political blogosphere might be Clinton's biggest obstacle to earning the nomination, something which the BlogPac Netroots survey has led me to argue for about eleven months now. I personally have tremendous worries about, if she became President, the number of troops Clinton would keep in Iraq, her connection to neoliberals who force through economic policy that Republicans like more than Democrats, ala the pending trade deal, her connection to DLC-nexus consultants that backstab the party for pay and attack the grassroots for fun, as well as what I perceive to be her at least somewhat lower (though not drastically lower) chances of winning a general election than Obama and Edwards. A Clinton nomination would feel like the complete triumph of the insider machine over the grassroots--the national equivalent of "machine boss" Bob Brady winning the Philadelphia mayoral election--which would return us squarely to the Democratic troubled times of 1994-2004. At the same time, because I consider myself a good Democrat, because of my belief in progressive Realpolitk, and because there are many people in the Clinton campaign that I respect quite a bit, I want to make certain that if "we" are able to beat her, that we do so fairly, according to the rules, and in a way that does not damage the party overall.

However, for one reason or another, we are just not making much progress on that front. Maybe it is because Obama and Edwards want to keep troops in Iraq, too. Maybe it is because many attacks against the netroots are not particularly fair, as Jonathan Chait has shown. Maybe it is because the Democratic base has become used to the idea that it needs to sell itself out on economic policy in order to supposedly "win over swing voters." Maybe it is because the red flags the blogosphere identifies about Clinton do not resonate with the base, or that the messages we use to communicate those red flags don't work. Maybe it is because the established media is already heavily engaged in this election, and we do better when they don't pay attention. Maybe the Clinton machine is just too tough a nut to crack, and we haven't made strong enough or wide enough coalitions to counter it. Or, possibly, maybe the election is still almost eight months away, and I am hyperventilating over nothing.

This is very frustrating. Of course I would support Clinton if she was the nominee, and of course I would rather she become President than any Republican. But, for a number of reasons I laid out in this post, I don't want her to become the nominee. I seriously wonder if I am having any impact whatsoever on preventing a Clinton nomination from happening.

Update: Gallup has some interesting information on Clinton and Obama supporters.

Tags: Blogosphere, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, netroots, polling averages, polls (all tags)

Comments

262 Comments

Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

So, she isn't improving or expanding in numbers?  I still say she does not have a lock on this, far from it.  And those negative numbers are hurting her to expand, whether you want to believe it or not.

by icebergslim 2007-05-11 08:35AM | 0 recs
The answer is E

You're hyperventilating over nothing; in fact you're unwittingly strengthing the myth of Hillary's strength. Most people aren't paying attention and of those who are, many aren't aware of the differences between the candidates. They will be. Hillary was bound to do well at first, because she didn't conform to the stereotype the media had created. That is, it turned out she wasn't an actual Dragon Lady. At some point, Obama and Edwards will start going after Clinton, establishing differences. It's not, I'll grant, a strength of either Obama or Edwards, but they and their teams will get it done, because that's what campaigns do. And Edwards, with Labor's help, will use the issue of Trade to take Hillary's white working class support away, and Obama will take her African-American support away. And then there's the electability factor. At some point Dems will notice that Hillary is the worst general election candidate, and it will matter.

One more thing: It's silly to complain about the Obama-Edwards debate, which is only serving to sharpen each campaign and forcing each candidate to establish his progressive credentials. Hillary will only be beaten by a strong progressive campaign, and the Obama-Edwards debate is keeping Obama honest. Without Edwards in the race, Obama would be nuzzling up against Hillary's left shoulder (even more than he already is), and that's not the way to beat Hillary.

Hillary won't win a single state.

by david mizner 2007-05-11 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer is E

Hey I agree, dude, like Hillary but anyone BUT Hillary...

by icebergslim 2007-05-11 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer is E
"Most people aren't paying attention and of those who are, many aren't aware of the differences between the candidates."

The former definitely isn't true. The latter might be.
by Chris Bowers 2007-05-11 09:28AM | 0 recs
You proved my point

The spirit of it, anyway.

According to your link, half the voters aren't even paying "somewhat close attention."

by david mizner 2007-05-11 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: You proved my point

good to be reminded

by bruh21 2007-05-11 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: You proved my point

Of course, the numbers never have been higher. Also round voting time a large percentage will still be in the aren't even paying "somewhat close attention." camp.

Compared to other years your scenario will have less effect then normal. "The spirit of it" is less there then usual. And in the best of circumstances assuming that voters will miraculously change to your own preferences if they would only learn enough is a bad strategy to depend on.

And you'd be more persuasive if you exclude the hyperboles next time. Even in the worst scenario Clinton will win states.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: You proved my point

I think he meant in the primary, not the general.

by BruinKid 2007-05-13 05:35AM | 0 recs
david mizner

You live in a fantasy world.

by samueldem 2007-05-11 11:19PM | 0 recs
Its also important to bear in mind ...

... that the national polls are only there at this point to make it easy for political journalists to cover the campaign without doing any work.

They do not mean anything, other than the media narrative.

Even if IA and NH moved up to November, the national polls would still be meaningless, except for writing a story about how the candidate or candidates getting a slingshot out of IA and/or NH have climbed in the polls compared to the candidate(s) that do not get a slingshot out of IA/NH.

For goodness, sake, the national polling includes Ohio ... and we won't be voting until a month after Tsunami Tuesday. Ohio only matters if the most of the delegates on Tsunami Tuesday end up being split fairly evently two or three ways, and except for building up grassroots organizations, the primary preferences here at that time will be dominated by what has been done and said since January 08.

Clinton has failed to get to first place in Iowa, her lead over Obama in NH has increased in the six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other way of swapping Obama for Edwards as her second place rival. Clinton is stuck right around 36% on the SC-Pres from ARG since December.

Mid-30's is not a comfortable position for the front runner who is the candidate about which there are the most deeply entrenched views ... a chasing rival that can trim the lead to single digits over eight months can claw that back with a surge of as little as one or two weeks.

by BruceMcF 2007-05-12 05:06AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer is E

The meme of the "worst" general election candidate is untrue.   We have seen a lot of polls lately where Obama polls very badly.  Lately Clinton actually polls very well against the GOP competition.  Yes, Edwards polls even better as a GE candidate, but not by much.  

This is a non-starter as an issue.  It is much more of an issue for Obama at this point.

by georgep 2007-05-12 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer is E

55% view HRC unfavorable, and you say "electability" is not an issue? Looks like wishful thinking on your part.

by upper left 2007-05-12 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The answer is E

"used to" should be the operative term.  More recent polling has snapped back to previous levels.  

The Marist poll, for instance, shows that those who state that they would "definitely not vote for" our candidates make that statement in regards to Clinton to the tune of 41% while saying the same about Edwards and Obama to the tune of 35%.   If unchanged, that may come into play if the nomination is on a razor-sharp level (Clinton and Obama or Edwards basically tied in state polls,) but is a complete non-factor in the current alignment (or an alignment similar to the current one.)

by georgep 2007-05-12 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Is there a disconnect between Democratic primary voters and the rest of the electorate? I have to ask this question because it seems there is one. How can the support for Sen. Clinton go up while the general population sees here as our least attractive choice when compared to the GOP choices? Can you explain this discrepancy?

by bruh21 2007-05-11 08:36AM | 0 recs
Low info Dems are nostalgic for the 90's

Someone tell them that Bill is not on the ballot.

by Populism2008 2007-05-11 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Low info Dems are nostalgic for the 90's

I'm high info, and I'm nostalgic for the 90's. Like, you know, habeas corpus. The old days when "torture" was still considered shameful.

Stuff like that, plus good economy.

by Coral 2007-05-11 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Low info Dems are nostalgic for the 90's

Lets stop with the "Clinton voters are uninformed and stupid" meme. It's insulting and counterproductive.

If you'll let that mindset go and replace it with one that's actually interested why high-information voters would vote for her, you'll be more effective at convincing her supporters to switch over. It's a win-win situation.

Nobody likes being talked down to. And your candidate is going to need those voters to win. If you keep talking the way you do, it's only going to make your job of stopping Hillary more difficult.

Those Hillary backers? They are fellow dems. Why don't we stay respectful towards each other.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

that argument hasn't been made yet, both Obama and Edwards will make it before this is over.

by nevadadem 2007-05-11 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I am not making an argument- I am actually asking a question. Has anyone ask the voters this question?

by bruh21 2007-05-11 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

The fact is that that is an untrue assumption.  The polls are actually showing her to be a very attractive choice even to GE voters.  She bests Giuliani in several national polls lately, moved ahead of Obama in virtually ALL states Survey USA has polled the "electability" issue with about 25 states showing her poll much better than Obama against GOP candidates.  

Therefore, there is no disconnect.  

by georgep 2007-05-12 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

It could be that most of her increase comes from voters who think that her chances of winning will go up, and the other major candidates chances will go down.

And although she does the worst out of all major democratic candidates, she doesn't do badly at all. She's generally either running equal to, or even better then, the republicans.

A lot of high information voters will be surprised at that, seeing her negatives are already established while the other major candidates of both parties aren't defined as of yet.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Go Hillary- love you!

by sterkt 2007-05-11 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

but most of the electorate doesn't- but that doesn't seem to concern her supporters.

by bruh21 2007-05-11 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Ah, the "electability" canard.  I think Clinton does well with the base because they buy into the notion that she is more liberal than, in fact, she actually is.  She does less well with independents for the exact same reason.  Add her high negatives and you have her showing the biggest weakness for the general.

As an anecdotal aside, my mother-in-law will vote Dem as long as the nominee isn't HRC; if it is, I'm sure the GOP will get her vote.  She loved Bill, hated Hil.

OTOH, I'm cynical enough about the American electorate to figure that Obama wouldn't poll anywhere near as well in an actual General Election as he does in hypothetical matchups.  A lot of people who wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances won't tell pollsters they wouldn't.

The most "electable" candidate might be Edwards, but he'll never fend off both Hil and Barack in the primaries.

by howie14 2007-05-11 08:57AM | 0 recs
That's ridicolous

People have nothing to lose from choosing the GOP candidate in a hypothetical matchup with Obama. There is nothing racist about that.

Obama transcends race, ideology, age and geography. He is everything that Hillary is not. Likeable, that is.

by Populism2008 2007-05-11 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

It's been one of the more interesting plotlines to follow about hillary and how people perceive her. Folks on the right(and most americans i think) think shes a far-left liberal socialist commie, while folks on the left demonize her because she's not liberal enough. And both of these facts can't be true. She can't be too liberal and too conservative at the same time. So what we seem to have with clinton is two vastly different takes on one voting record.

by freaktown 2007-05-11 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months
Let's take a wild guess here, and go with "the conservatives are wrong." Just like they are about everything else.
by Chris Bowers 2007-05-11 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Split decision

Hillary is above average among Democrats overall in her voting record.  Too liberal.

Hillary has failed to show leadership for progressive positions in the Senate and above all is wrong on Iraq.  Too conservative.

There you go, Hubert Humphrey redux without the sunny personality.  This unfortunate split really is possible.  P.S., to Republicans any Democrat to the left of Gene Taylor or Ben Nelson will be branded as too liberal.  

by David Kowalski 2007-05-11 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Maybe they are "wrong," but she is obviously a progressive Democrat (not a moderate or conservative Democrat.)  I believe both sides are wrong to an extent.  As the campaign unfolds there will be the effect that Democrats continue to like her (a lot,) but that the GE voters will realize that the negative spin is mostly hot air.  The "negativity" factor will come crashing down like a house of cards.  She will end up being one of the best GE candidates we have had for the Democratic party, IMHO.  

by georgep 2007-05-12 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

And you know what, so are a lot of the people who call her to right wing.

Hillary's voting record places her in the middle of the party. That's a good place to be. She's not the most progressive candidate out there, but neither is she the bogeyman a lot of commentators make her out to be.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 10:34AM | 0 recs
freaktown wrote:

"It's been one of the more interesting plotlines to follow about hillary and how people perceive her. Folks on the right(and most americans i think) think shes a far-left liberal socialist commie, while folks on the left demonize her because she's not liberal enough. And both of these facts can't be true. She can't be too liberal and too conservative at the same time. So what we seem to have with clinton is two vastly different takes on one voting record."
______

Bingo.  And that is Hillary's brilliance as a politician.  You have encapsulated it in your commentary above; and that puts you closer to any other netroots member I have encountered to figuring out Hillary's strategy.

There is no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of those who know her best and support her the strongest, that Hillary's gloves will come off, one at a time, with the impeccable timing she is known for.  (read the above, twice)  

I hope this will be the focus of more discussion. I have yet to see Bowers, Stoller or Markos even come close to figuring out Hillary.  They are too invested in stopping her, even if it means putting her down.  

A few well-known and highly respected progressive bloggers figured it out and guess who they work for today?  But you cannot even recognize the carefully timed outreach they are making to you when the first thing that comes into your minds at the mention of Hillary's name is "how do we bring her down".  I hope you all figure it out.  But either way, it is highly unlikely anyone, either a Democrat or a Republican, is going to stop her.  Her campaign mirrors her strategy and everyone on her team is perfectly in sync with her strategy and none of them would be there if Hillary hadn't custom picked each of them.

I observe her, sometimes in awe, and then I visit certain blogs and read mindless rants about her lack of charisma; her lust for power and her threat to the progressive "movement" and I have to ask ... when you cannot touch the one candidate you abhor the most, in your own party - how smart are you?

Part of my daily entertainment is reading so-called smart bloggers proclaim that those who support Hillary are the "uninformed" and that once these uninformed Democrats figure it out, they will drop her like a hot potato. She is too smart for you, and in a way it's too bad, because I have no doubt she'd buy more blogads than anyone if she had one quarter of the support you all give to Edwards, or Obama -- here on these blogs -- that I sometimes think are fuelled more by your hatred for her, than your support for anyone else.

And she's so admirable that she will never hold it against any of you.  

I have been a Democrat for over 40 years.  I supported and loved, and still love, Al Gore.  I worked for Lamont.  I still think Howard Dean was the first Democratic hero of the 21st century.  And I am grateful that Hillary is running on behalf of our party and not the other party.

Now who's going to be the first "progressive" to call me a paid shill?  

by samueldem 2007-05-12 12:52AM | 0 recs
Not me

Please post this as a diary.

I support Barack Obama. I also happen to dislike Hillary Clinton. Quite a lot. But it is
for both of these reasons that I think your perspective should be read and discussed
here and elsewhere in the "progressive" blogosphere.

As much as they tout "progressive" values, "progressive" blogs tend to frame those
values in terms of a more or less fixed set of policy positions and goals. In doing so, they
create the very litmus tests that lure their participants into endless microscopic readings,
second guessings, and small-picture squabbles over who is the more "progressive" candidate,
based on what X said vs. what Y supported vs. which blacklisted policy wonk Z hired as an advisor.

This self-perpetuating addiction is -- like any addiction -- distracting and, ultimately, self-sabotaging.

Certainly, policy is important. But far and away the more important conversation -- the conversation
that should be at the core of any "progressive" blog, but that one rarely sees there -- revolves around
the question: What qualifies as a progressive way of leadership?

This would re-frame the real question for 2008 as: Who is the most progressive leader among
the candidates -- the one most likely to carry the country and the world forward by virtue of
their style of leadership?

Were you to post your comment here as a diary, it could be one way to leverage these
consequential questions into the debate.

by horizonr 2007-05-12 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Harold Ford Jr. in last year's TN Senate raceperformed about the same in the actual election as in the final public opinion polls so I don't think that the "Harvey Gandt effect" is still alive these days.

In any event, it's a sad day if we let fear of bigotry determine which candiates it is "safe" for us to consider for the nomination.

by Sam I Am 2007-05-11 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

It's only a canard if you are delusional. In the real world, it matters. The lesson from 2004 is not that we shouldn't care about electability. Which is the simplistic argument I would expect here unfortunately. The lesson is that a) it shouldn't be the only thing in lieu of personality, strength etc and b) that when looking at electability Democratic voters aren't necessarily good at it.

by bruh21 2007-05-11 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

PS- and by good at it- I mean as in the things such as personality and whether people really, really hate our choice or not. Kerry - people didn't really, really hate him, but they didn't really really like him either, and he wasn't willing to fight. The lesson from that is that Dean would have been better at least on the level of fighting- although giving the times, we probably still would have lost due to context. Mostly I suspect HRC is hoping inertia and a weak GOP field will do the job.

by bruh21 2007-05-11 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Clinton is connecting with the voters. Some recent polls have shown that voters see her as a leader but do not see that at this point in Edwards and Obama. She is attracting a diverse range of demographic groups  Voters are comfortable with her, they see her as highly intelligent, competent and tough.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

what general head to head poll with actually GOP candidate show what you just wrote?

by bruh21 2007-05-11 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

The most recent ones are from state polls. In SC voters 4 to 1 rank Clinton as a leader over Obama and Edwards.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

What about her head to head polls with Guliani in : CT, IA, NJ, FL PA MO WI KY AND VA. She loses them all. Edwards wins those states. Edwards wins IA 54-40, while Clinton loses 48-45.

I think Edwards can win IA by 10+ AND THIS WILL GIVE HIM THE MOMENTUM TO WIN NH.

Also he has a better organization in IA.

by BDM 2007-05-11 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

This oddly enough fields like the Kerry inevitability shell game to me. No one is looking at whether the candidate is ACTUALLY our best choice. They are making quick judgments and running with the dominant meme. Here part of the new dominant meme is that electability is not a factor at all (or at least it seems to be because of the fact that the head to head isn't included every time you mention Democratic primary voters versus what the general holds in store). And my questions above are real questions to Chris. What exactly is going on here? Do primary voters not care that they are choosing our weakest general election candidate? Do they somehow not care about electability because they cared too much about it in the wrong way in 2004? Why aren't people asking these questions?

by bruh21 2007-05-11 10:11AM | 0 recs
Your questions are excellent, bruh21

Same theme I've posted on many sites for more than a year, that Hillary improperly benefits from '04 and the improper designation of Kerry as most electable. So many Democrats got a bad taste in their mouths from that word and its apparent failure that they are apparently content to jettison the entire concept this time around. I think Hillary would have half the chance at the nomination, or less, in '08 without the '04 experience. I'm just hoping the primary voters wise up in time. Their are basic methods to handicap the Kentucky Derby. You don't throw them away in '06 and beyond simply because a longshot stiff like Giacomo wins in 2005.

I wish the '06 Nevada example had come in a more high profile state. It is virtually ignored. Dina Titus in the gov race was considered unlikable and unelectable, due to problems in northern Nevada and too liberal for the state. But she swamped more moderate Jim Gibson in the primary. At that point the argument was electability was idiotic, that no way you could bypass the more impressive candidate due to a vague criteria called electability.

However, once the general election began Titus was behind from the outset. Polls showed the weakness among moderates and swing voters. She couldn't even gain an advantage among women. Even with Gibbons imploding daily with every conceivable scandal, Titus was rejected by 4 points. At that point the pre-primary realities finally resurfaced, that Jim Gibson was indeed most electable. Columnists and analysts were saying he would have defeated Gibbons handily. I have no doubt that is true. Let's not make the same gaffe on a much larger scale.

by Gary Kilbride 2007-05-11 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Your questions are excellent, bruh21

My thing is that people personally don't like her. That means you got to not only go from neutral to like or best of two bad choices, but they hate you already. her supporters want to turn a blind eye to that. I can't. If she had half the charisma of her husband - maybe. But to me- she's kerry all over again. Boring. Boring. Boring. That  means she has to appeal to people in other ways. When I look at her- I don't see other than as others have mention it- as a form of nostalgia or willful "I am going to vote this way" rather than okay what's best for country? So far, no one is really and can't seriously make that argument. I support Edwards, but among the three only Edwards and Obama are even close to being about country rather than just ambition. Character does matter. And my fear is that all the indicators are that her character will trump any serious discussion of bigger issues.

by bruh21 2007-05-11 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Your questions are excellent, bruh21

Okay, what's best for country?

Hillary is the best candidate out of the entire field to make America loved in the world again. The respect she has from world leaders and the general populace is unsurpassed.

Hillary is the best candidate out of the entire field to protect the woman's right to choose.

Hillary is the best candidate out of the entire field to introduce universal healthcare. She has by far the most knowledge and experience out of all candidates on the subject, and is the only one unlikely to repeat the fiasco of the early '90.

Those subjects are just some of the reasons why Hillary would be good for the country.

And yes, Hillary is ambitious. But if you think neither Edwards or Obama are just as ambitious then you're in for a nasty surprise. You don't start running for president if you're not extremely ambitious.

She always fought for idealistic causes all her life, to claim that she's less interested then the others in what's good for the country you have to overlook a past rooted in idealism and activism.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Your questions are excellent, bruh21

Why is she unlikely to reproduce the fiasco of the early 90s?  

She authored the fiasco of the early '90s.  Her inability to sell it, along with her inability to author a plan that was comprehensible to the average voter is the reason we don't have UHC now.  She claims to have learned from her mistakes, but I don't know whether or not I trust her on this, considering she still refuses to admit her mistake on Iraq.

by Valatan 2007-05-12 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Your questions are excellent, bruh21

there was also a repub maj in the senate when she tried, and it wasnt as big an issue as it is now - those things make all the difference

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-12 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Your questions are excellent, bruh21

No.  

There was a Dem majority in both houses when she tried.

by Valatan 2007-05-12 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Your questions are excellent, bruh21

And UHC was the central element of Bill's 1992 campaign bid.  It's hard to say that it wasn't that big of an issue at the time.

by Valatan 2007-05-12 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Your questions are excellent, bruh21

Balancing the budget was the central element of Bill's 1992 campaign bid, UHC was secondary.

At the time, the Clinton Whitehouse was inexperienced and had put all its political capital on the budget, leaving the UHC heavy on wonks but short on hacks. Hillary didn't know how to deal with the senate at the time and frankly blew it with the senate. You are right on that.

But she learned from that. And you don't have to take her word for it or mine. But you can look at how she functions in the senate. While you can have problems with certain stances she took. (Rightly, I might add. I have problems with some myself.) All the things she did wrong she fixed. She's is no longer divisive, She earned her place, and is no longer appointed by her husband. Can create good working relationships across the aisle with the very people that hated her at first. And all that while maintaining a voting record that is right in the middle of the Democratic Party.

She is no longer the person she was in 92. And unlike any other candidate she knows the problems of getting health care reform trough, and she knows how to deal with those problems.

And "along with her inability to author a plan that was comprehensible to the average voter is the reason we don't have UHC now.

That part is quite frankly, (and I don't mean to insult you) republican talking point bullshit.

Any plan that is comprehensible to the average voter and involves the largest single standing part of the budget is a plan that is so full of loopholes and errors that it is unworkable. A thousand pages of law seems much but for the amount of money involved is average, in fact it's relatively light reading material. Anything less complicated might sound better, but actually isn't.

The general outline was comprehensive and actually liked by the populace. It's just that they didn't know it was the Clinton plan they liked. A major  communications failure by the Whitehouse.

The healthcare fiasco was entirely a communications error.

That happened because of a lack of experience on her side with dealing with the senate.

And the lack of communications to the populace happened because the people responsible in the Whitehouse were busy with the budget and other things and didn't figure this needed watching as well.

Not only has she shown that she won't make those mistakes again, she has shown that she actually became quite proficient in those very things she did so poorly first time around.

by Ernst 2007-05-13 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Your questions are excellent, bruh21

In the meantime, she has pushed very hard for health care coverage for children.

Another problem in the early 90s was that this was a very gutsy move that didnt have as much support as it has today. Furthermore, repubs in 94 were a lot stronger than they are today.

Every major progressive movement in the US has had a lot of roadblocks. During reconstruction, most of the laws that were passed were passed because the North forced the South to act a certain way. If people didnt go along, they were blacklisted, and not allowed to hold office.

During the New Deal - it took a lot of time as well. The first major new deal packages were all struck down by the supreme court and it wasnt until major landslide victories and packing of the court that things began to change.

Same thing during the civil rights movement. You honestly think Brown v. Board came out of nowhere? Wrong, the NAACP worked for years on the outside, first dealing with desegregation of grad schools and law schools then moving on to the core of elementary/high schools. The case was reargued twice before the Supreme Court before a decision came down, and it wouldnt have happened had there not been an effort to start off slowly on the outsides before striking at the core.

Edwards might have the most substantive plan for UHC, but his chances at passing it are just as slim as it was in the early 90s. This is already being labeled as too expensive and "too liberal". It will cause a backlash, and he will get slaughtered in debates on the way to the general election because of it.

There has never been a progressive movement that just sort of happened. Everything takes steps, and its slow and steady that wins the race, not forcing an idea. Take heed.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-13 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Your questions are excellent, bruh21

The voters seem "wise" enough.   Many believe Clinton to be the better of the three candidates.  Not that the other two aren't good candidates, but they have weaknesses in important areas.  While nobody is perfect, those weaknesses obviously outweigh any weaknesses Clinton has.  

In other words, the situation is the candidates' situation.  The weaknesses of each candidate are real and are being processed and weighted as for importance.   Obama and Edwards supporters would be best served to advise their candidates on ways to "fix" their problem areas.  Otherwise they won't have a chance.  

by georgep 2007-05-12 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

She barely loses those, all within the MoE, which actually is a tie.  But, she is tons better than Obama in those polls, so the issue of General Election electability obviously hits Obama much worse.   Now, Edwards is lagging far behind BOTH Clinton and Obama with Democrats.  As long as that persists, GE can not be a concern.  He needs to become more popular with Democrats first and foremost.  Who in the heck cares how Republicans in general election contests perceive Edwards when Democrats don't believe him to be better presidential material than either Clinton or Obama?   His poll numbers have fallen to a level below previous levels (RCP poll average 13.7%.)   He was almost at 17% before, so the recent drop is a further rejection by Democrats of sorts.

by georgep 2007-05-12 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Iowa and NH will radically move the numbers in every other state.

by Valatan 2007-05-12 02:06PM | 0 recs
Well, half of the voters hate her

but I guess that you are right about 10% of the general electorate. To them she is a leader. After all she lead us into the Iraq mess and never spoke out under the presidency of George Bush (except for banning computer games).

by Populism2008 2007-05-11 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, half of the voters hate her

Clinton's been in favor of changing Iraq strategy for over 2 years with redeployment. Obama is now also in favor of redeployment. Sorry Populist, but you're misinformed :)

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-12 03:50PM | 0 recs
As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

It's all about Iowa and New Hampshire. Watch where the candidates spend their time and money.

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-11 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.
You have to be close nationally in order for the Iowa and New Hampshire bounces to be decisive.
by Chris Bowers 2007-05-11 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

That is a good point. If Edwards won Iowa and got say a 10 point bounce that does not help him in the delegate rich states a few days later where he is in single digits.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

You totally un-derestimate the sling shot effect in NH. It used to be their was a couple of weeks between IA and NH, which allowed a front runner to recover. Not so this time.

by BDM 2007-05-11 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

How was Kerry doing nationally before Iowa?

by clarkent 2007-05-11 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.
I believe he was about eight points behind Dean in NH and nationally, just before Iowa.
by Chris Bowers 2007-05-11 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

Just found this on Pollster.com. According to the graph, Kerry was about 20 points behind nationally.

by clarkent 2007-05-11 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.
That was also a different year. The Democratic rank and file had no strong attachment to anyone in that field. Polls only two months before Iowa still showed Clinton ahead by 30+ points against that field in a hypothetical matchup. There wasn't nearly the same level of satisfaction with the candidates running.
by Chris Bowers 2007-05-11 09:22AM | 0 recs
Hail Mary Passes. . .

Don't often happen in politics.

Hope is not a plan.

If Edwards and Obama people don't want Hillary to win, then I suggest they stop shooting at each other for a while to try to clear the space for either of their chosen candidates to find an opening.

by Pachacutec 2007-05-11 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hail Mary Passes. . .

You mean, 'Do Edwards and Obama supporters love their children more than they hate Clinton?'

by BingoL 2007-05-11 09:53AM | 0 recs
Same concerns about the frontrunner, though.

People weren't sure Dean could win the general election. As soon as he lost, his support collapsed. Kerry was at 9% nationally before Iowa, Dean at 31%.

Democrats have the same worries about Hillary, and a loss will cement them. The media will pounce.

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-11 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Same concerns about the frontrunner, though.

Big difference between then and now - people are already saying that Edwards will win Iowa, including Hillary's campaign.  That sets expectations way down, whereas Dean went all-in in 2004 in Iowa and set expectations high.

The more people talk up Edwards chances in Iowa, the more it will dampen his actual outcome.  And you better hope he doesn't place second, because then it will be over.  The expectations game will ensure it.

by Conquest 2007-05-11 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Same concerns about the frontrunner, though.

Edwards whole strategy is to win IA from the git go.

Hillary is making an all out effort in IA. What if Hillary places 3rd in IA? wHAT DOES IT DO TO HER CAMPAIGN?

by BDM 2007-05-11 10:20AM | 0 recs
Incorrect. Vilsack said Hillary will win Iowa...

...when he endorsed her. Not do well in Iowa. Win. That's now the bar for her, and it shows that her campaign understands what losing would mean.

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-11 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Incorrect. Vilsack said Hillary will win Iowa.

No the bar for her will be what voter will think the evening before the iowa election.

Simply declaring a line in a speech that somebody only half related to her campaign made the bar won't make it so.

Every campaign at soem point will say they'll win. The only one who has it as the bar is the one that people believe will win.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

I agree, but I was pointing to a counter-example. I'm sure that the Hillary campaign is looking to make sure that what happened to Dean doesn't happen to her. They already have a lot of the institutional support that Dean didn't have at the time.

by clarkent 2007-05-11 09:43AM | 0 recs
Dean had Al Gore and Tom Harkin.

Democrats, much more than Republicans, decide for themselves about their nominee. Republicans like coronations. Democrats like to throw their frontrunner overboard at the first opportunity.

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-11 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

I agree, for me, this year's Republican line up has the feel of the Dem line up of 2004. I think Giuliani is their Dean (ahead in the polls), and McCain is Kerry(the establishment pick), who may come from behind and seal the deal.  Romney may end up being like Edwards, a surprise and almost spoiler. (McCain/Romney), the final GOP ticket?

by Kingstongirl 2007-05-11 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.
By which I mean, don't assume that this election will be like the previous one. That is always dangerous.
by Chris Bowers 2007-05-11 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

I totally agree.  Don't think the Dems are just going to go rank and file to Hillary.  She has some attachment, but not strong attachment.  If Obama or Edwards do good in the June 3rd debate, watch these poll numbers shift again.  Meaning, people are shopping, not definate on any candidate.

by icebergslim 2007-05-11 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

I am not, but Chuck Todd seems to think that with the front loading of the process, IA and NH become more magnifying for the states that follow.

If you think that this theory is wrong and they become less important, then the leader nationally will probably win.

by BDM 2007-05-11 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

Problem with this sort of thing is that we can't know what the effect's going to be, until it has already happened.

This new agenda has me sitting on the edge of my seat, can't for the love of god think how the campaigns endure it.

It's exiting to say the least.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

I am not sure you are right Chris. I know (4) weeks before IA Dean led Kerry nationally 40-17

by BDM 2007-05-11 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

He actually led in two major NH polls before Iowa.  Dean's support was already falling apart well before Iowa.

by georgep 2007-05-12 07:32AM | 0 recs
John Kerry proved that is not the case.

If you're the national frontrunner with gobs of money, you have the endorsement of Tom Vilsack in Iowa, and your major weakness is concerns about electability, you'd better not prove those concerns to be well-founded by losing in the first contest.

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-11 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

On the other hand, we've had all of one debate, and that was basically a series of small speeches.

I will be curious to see if the field winnows enough to where there can be more of a give and take debate format.  

It would be great if that happened BEFORE Iowa.

by Rooktoven 2007-05-11 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

Clinton is a strong debater.  She actually is strongest in the Townhall format.  People leave those impressed with her human side, warmth and humor.   In this particular contest any types of debates will break down the "Dragon Lady" perception by low-info voters, but the Townhalls will probably be slam-dunk time for her.

by georgep 2007-05-12 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

NOT IF THE NUMBERS ARE SOFT.

by BDM 2007-05-11 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: As Chuck Todd points out, it doesn't matter.

But seeing that the level of interest never been higher, the starting date earlier and the candidates as high profile as now, I'm thinking the numbers going to be more firm this round then usual.

The numbers might even turn out to be too set. The last thing we want is this election to turn bitter on our side.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 11:22AM | 0 recs
Part of the blame has to go to the netroots

- including frontposters - for attacking Obama (in particular) and Edwards relentlessly the last couple of months, while letting Hillary and the Republicans off the hook.

Instead of looking for tiny disagreements with the two progressives in the race we could reach out to the low info Dems and educate them about Hillary.

Frankly I am so tired with the anti-Obama hate fest that I could almost weep.

by Populism2008 2007-05-11 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Part of the blame has to go to the netroots
I doubt very much the blog audience has any affect on these polls.
It's very simple. Hillary is bringing her 'A' game.  The Maryland Governor's endorsement yesterday was astounding.  I mean... May!?
by NYFM 2007-05-11 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Part of the blame has to go to the netroots

Look what the blogs are doing in the Philadelphia mayor's race. Blogs are powerful, especially in primaries.

by Populism2008 2007-05-11 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Part of the blame has to go to the netroots

Because he knows if Hillary loses in '08 and he is re-elected, he becomes one of the front runners in '12.

by Nedsdag 2007-05-11 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Part of the blame has to go to the netroots
What's astounding about endorsing in May? Maybe it would be astounding in earlier years, but Gov. Kaine in Virginia endorsed Obama some time back, and all sorts of other endorsements have been happening for a while now.
by KCinDC 2007-05-11 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Part of the blame has to go to the netroots

This is true, actually.  I don't know if it makes a difference, but, there is an obsession over dissecting Edwards, and especially Obama's, every little move, and proclaiming this speech or this stance "against the progressive movement", when over half the time this activity is simply debating angels of the head of a pin.

There was a TPM Cafe piece, about a month ago, giving in full the voting records of hillary, obama, and edwards.  

The 95% agreement on all issues, was overwhelming.  

And yet there is this obsession about these small things.  

I understand why, as political junkies care about these PARTICULAR candidates, and it goes without saying that the Republicans will be opposed.  So why talk about them?

I don't know what the balance is between criticizing your own guys honestly, and supporting them ("emphasize the positive, eliminate the negative"), but clearly the energy is ABOUT the candidates.

Look at the trade issues from yesterday.  On one post, 18 comments?  And yet, for any Obama vs. Clinton vs. Edwards, you get over a 100 comments.
I would say that the trade posts "should" have gotten 300 comments, as that is something pretty real - economics choices that continue "lite Republicanism/New Democrat", rather than a new economic progressive ideal.  That is much more important that the keeping score in the Obama/Edwards/Clinto momentary shifts.

It's the political geeks version of high school gossip.

by jc 2007-05-11 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Part of the blame has to go to the netroots

The 95% is about how I see the 3 candidates. There is not a lot of difference.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Part of the blame has to go to the netroots

Well, Hillary has been getting more negative frontposts out of all Democratic candidates.

In fact there was a comment up not long ago that declared how hard a time Obama was getting because he only had one negative post less then Hillary.

As for progressives, the voting records are all very close.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 11:27AM | 0 recs
A Telling Slip

" Of course I would support Clinton if she was the nominee, and of course I would rather he become President than any Republican. "

by MNPundit 2007-05-11 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: A Telling Slip
Ha! Good one. Fixed.
by Chris Bowers 2007-05-11 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: A Telling Slip

I appreciate your honesty and candor in this matter.

:)

by MNPundit 2007-05-11 09:11AM | 0 recs
I find it extremely frustrating ...
that you are so against a Democratic candidate this early.

Be THRILLED that we have such an abundance of well-qualified folks running - Hillary, Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and Dodd - and that any of them would be a HUGE change over the assholes currently sitting in 1600.

Plus, as MeanBoneII points out, it's all about the first few primary states ... I won't go as far to say that it's all about Iowa and New Hampshire, as I don't really think it is with this group of candidates. I really think the winner of the Feb 5th superprimary is taking home the nomination, if there is a clear winner.

Stop obsessing about Hillary. She, like any of the above-mentioned candidates, will be one of the better Presidents we've ever had, and you know it.

by DailyKingFish 2007-05-11 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...

As an undecided leaning towards Hillary, I totally agree. If she turns out to be the nominee, I will work like crazy to help her get elected.

I don't understand the reasons for the liberal/left/progressive attacks on her. Yes, Edwards's program is more progressive. Frankly, Obama's isn't.

And with the horror show of the GOP candidates, I think it's self-defeating to attack a perfectly respectable candidate like Hillary.

by Coral 2007-05-11 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...

There's a little matter of that vote in October 2002, and her subsequent refusal to admit any wrong doing.  Obama spoke out against the war when it was unpopular to do so.  Edwards apologized for his role in the debacle.  Hillary's lapse of judgment, or cynical political calculation on the central issue of this decade, is enough for me to work hard against her nomination.

Decisions have consequences.  How Democrats can give her a free pass on this one is beyond me.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...
She has made sufficient statements on her vote as have all of the Democrats who voted for it. She was not as strong of a supporter of it as Edwards who was a co-sponsor. She took a middle of the road approach at a time when 70% of the American public supported Bush and was for a war with Iran.
There are single issue voters in both parties who will not vote for a nominee because of some single vote whether it is Iraq, abortion, gay rights, etc. but I personally do not think that is a route to having a good government.
by robliberal 2007-05-11 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...

There is also the matter of having a residualforce in IRAQ THAT WOULD ENGAGE WITH AL QUEDA, GUARD THE OIL FIELDS, GUARD THE kURDS and guard the borders.

Does anybody thin it is good policy to have American Troops occupy a Arab country in the middle east?

Does any body think that a residual force will not be engaged in combat and there will not be american casulities.?

by BDM 2007-05-11 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...

There will be a residual force in Iraq no matter who is elected in either party.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...
Bullshit. Just bullshit. Did you follow the debate over Richardson's Iraq policy here?
by Chris Bowers 2007-05-11 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...

Yes and I do not think Richardson's position is realistic. Regardless of what is said in the primaries and general election I think any president who takes office will have no choice but to leave residual levels of troops in Iraq with very limited and defined roles because of the situation there. In my opinion this is a situation like post WWII and post Korea where there are not really other options but to continue a presence there. By the way I was very much against the war from day 1 and I still am but I think we have very, very limited responsible options with regard to exit strategies.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...

You must be a member of Code Pink.  At this point, I would really rather she not apologize for her vote.  What happens if Edwards wins the nomination?  He gets into the general and the Republicans label him a sissy for apologizing over a war vote.  They'll pound him with national security - something that he's setting himself up for with all these stupid emails telling Congress what to do.

Obama has a solid platform where he can say, I didn't support the war from the beginning, and I don't support it now.  Hillary says I voted on the information, but now we know the information is wrong and we should nullify the vote.  Edwards apologizes for his vote and threatens to cut funding.  He's really setting himself up for a winger attack.

Obama and Hillary are both aiming for the general.  I'm not sure Edwards is.

by Conquest 2007-05-11 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...

That is a good part, Clinton and Obama are in better position than Edwards on that.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 10:32AM | 0 recs
The majority of the American people agree...

...with Edwards. And an awful lot of them can relate to his position, because they regret ever giving Bush, Blair, and Powell the benefit of the doubt.

It is becoming more and more obvious that having the courage to admit you were wrong -- rather than stubbornly repeating the same mistake over and over -- is an asset in a leader. And Edwards has the skill to make that case quite well, with a statement like this: "Unlike George Bush, I'm not afraid to stand up and admit it when I make a mistake. America needs a president who can change direction rather than go off a cliff."

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-11 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: The majority of the American people agree...

His problems with the Democratic electorate (13.7% share and sinking) contradict your statement.

by georgep 2007-05-12 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...
The netroots's affection towards Edwards for apologizing for his AUMF vote is idiotic. We shouldn't want politicians that will make the wrong decision about important issues and then apologize for it four years later. We should want politicians that simply make the right decision. Even in that regard, its good that Obama opposed the war from the beginning, but he had the luxury of still being a state legislator who was planning to run for Senate in an extremely Democratic state. If we're willing to forgive Ben Nelson for breaking with the party because of his electoral position, but not Joe Lieberman, we should also not kid ourselves that Obama's war position was particularly courageous.
by gsteff 2007-05-11 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...

I like the way that anyone who has a problem with HRC is because they are "liberal" I am not liberal by most people's standards here. The problem I have with her is that she's just not likeable. Whether any of you get that is an issue I don't know. But the most dangerous thing you can do is to miss this element of the discussion. Her don't like numbers are high.

by bruh21 2007-05-11 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I find it extremely frustrating ...

I think you misread it, because that's not what was said. It said that corel didn't understand the reason of a specific group of people's line of attack.

It didn't say "anyone" or if there are or aren't any other reasons to dislike her. If you aren't part of that group and haven't made that specific attack, it wasn't aimed at you or your arguments.

You are right that it would be silly to think there would only be one point of disagreement possible on any candidate.

And for her likeability factor, I assume that most of us either "get" it but find it less important then you. (After all, a lot of unlikable presidents got elected)
Or simply disagree. (After all, a lot of people do really like her)

I personally think it's a little of both for me. She isn't as bad as people think but neither is she the most charismatic of all candidates, luckily her strengths on other issues compensate for that.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Who are Hillary's supporters?  Maybe there's a generation gap, but not one of my progressive friends has anything but contempt for HRC.  I imagine that her support derives from a more middle aged/elderly cohort, and is also skewed a bit female.

Frankly, I find this discouraging.  My gut tells me that the only possible way we end up with a Republican president in 2008 is to nominate Hillary.  Personally, I can't stand her for reasons that have already been well articulated in the blogosphers (corporatism, pandering, Iraq War support).  We're still a long way off from January.  Hopefully Hillary's support stays where it is, while a progressive challenger, whether it's Obama or Edwards, gains strength.  A Hillary nomination not only would be a blow against more progressive candidates in the race.  It would also be electoral suicide for the Democrats.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Actually some polls have shown the "middle aged/elderly cohort" to be Edwards supporters. Clinton led in all demographic groups except that group in one recent poll.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I've noticed that too. It's as if the younger demos just look right past Edwards (and straight to Obama). But when it comes time to count votes, I would rather the 40+ crowd be on my side than the under 30's.

by LandStander 2007-05-11 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Considering that those 55 and older are the most likely to go to the voting booths (they make up more than 50% of primary voters and 60% of caucus voters) the biggest constituency you want to have on your side is the 55+ crowd without a question.  

by georgep 2007-05-12 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I have also found that all of my activists friends in the midwest do not like her and want any body but Hillary.

by BDM 2007-05-11 10:04AM | 0 recs
my unscientific observation from 2004

Edwards and Kerry both had a lot of momentum going into the caucuses. Edwards seemed to pick up the greater share of the people in their 30s and 40s, Kerry seemed to pick up the greater share of people over 50. This was true not only in my precinct, but all over Des Moines and the suburbs. Wherever a precinct was dominated by younger families rather than empty nesters, Edwards got more delegates.

Since the 30-49 age group is a huge swing demographic, I think Edwards has very strong potential to win a general election.

Georgep keeps saying Hillary is strong among the over-50 voters. I can't say I've found that in my conversations with the over-50 crowd I know in Des Moines and in the suburbs, but maybe I just don't know a representative group.

by desmoinesdem 2007-05-11 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

That is what I am trying to figure out.  I am in my 40's, early, and most of my colleagues, friends, neighbors consistantly say anyone but her.  So, if they are saying this in the Chicago suburbs, they must be stating this elsewhere.  Which, explains the negative numbers.

by icebergslim 2007-05-11 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

IIRC, her support is less urban and more rural.

the Clinton's always try to go for that demographic as much as possible as democrats.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I'm not a Clintonite, I've not made a decision, but perhaps her lead is because at this point in time, she's the best candidate with the best organization.  I don't think that's a stretch and doesn't reflect that she has the best positions either.  Remember, as voters become more engaged, substantive positions on issues will begin to matter more and bio will matter a little bit less.  There will be enough attention on this race and the major candidates will have enough money to get themselves out there.  The cream will rise.  We just have to figure out who that is...

by JBaker 2007-05-11 09:09AM | 0 recs
Carl Cannon Piece On Hillary Clinton

Carl Cannon had a piece in Washington Monthly about a year ago that compared the Hillary Clinton campaign to the campaign of Ronald Reagan. The conventional wisdom was overwhelmingly against Reagan when he ran but he connected with the voters and now. We are in many ways in a similar situation now.


No one back east took Reagan nearly as seriously as he seemed to be taking himself. Despite a devoted following among what were then known as Goldwater Republicans, the Washington cognoscenti casually dismissed Reagan as too conservative, too old, a B-movie actor who once played second fiddle to a chimpanzee. "Who does he think he is?" I asked my dad. "The president of the United States?"

"No," came the reply. "He thinks he's the next president of the United States." After a pause, he added, "And he might be."

I remember that vignette every time a political sage says authoritatively that Hillary Rodham Clinton will "never" be president.

-
They've been going at her with verbal tire irons, machetes, and sawed-off shotguns for 12 years now. Sen. Clinton's negatives are already figured into her ratings. What could she be accused of that she hasn't already confronted since she entered the public eye 14 years ago? Clinton today is in a position similar to Bush's at the beginning of 2004. Democrats hoped that more information about the president's youth would knock him down. But voters had already taken the president's past into account when they voted for him in 2000. More information just wasn't going to make a dent. In fact, as the spring of 2005 turned to summer there were yet another book and a matched spate of tabloid broadsides. In the face of it all, Hillary appears, if anything, to be getting stronger. Indeed, the more the right throws at her, the easier it is for her to lump any criticism in with the darkest visions of the professional Clinton bashers.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/feature s/2005/0507.cannon.html

by robliberal 2007-05-11 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Cannon Piece On Hillary Clinton

Remember their was a split in the Democratic party when Carter was challenged by Kennedy which went all the way to the convention.

by BDM 2007-05-11 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Cannon Piece On Hillary Clinton

True, but there is no incumbent nor crown prince now on the republican side, so there probably will be a challenge all the way to the republican convention. Makes the scenerio work better actually.

But one thing I learned in politics, there are no repeat scenerios. And Clinton's the reverse of Reagan to begin with.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Man, mydd is starting to be an anti-hillary website. Same thing with the huffington post.

by proudtobeliberal 2007-05-11 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I wish the netroots focus was more on Democrats winning in 2008 instead of being so anti-Clinton, anti-Edwards, anti-Obama. I want to see a Democrat win. Voters will make that decision early next year and hopefully at this time next year we will be supporting our nominee and talking about how to defeat the GOP.  

by robliberal 2007-05-11 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months
The netroots have always been just as much about transforming the Democratic Party as it has been about helping Democrats win. To think otherwise would be to misconstrue our history, our successes, or even how we were able to come into being. If the activist rank and file was happy with the Democratic establishment, then there wouldn't be any progressive blogosphere or netroots. We don't exist simply to be a mouthpiece of the establishment. We don't just want any Democratic government--we want a progressive one most of all.
by Chris Bowers 2007-05-11 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I would like the Democratic Party to be more progressive as well but I think there is more than one route to get there. We are fortunate to have a better field of candidates than the GOP for the first time in many election cycles.

In 2004 we regained the Senate and House by running a diverse group of candidates from far left to conservative that fit the demographics of the various states and congressional districts that were in play and we will do the same in 2008. To win the White House in 2008 we have to do the same with a presidential nominee.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Clinton aide James Carville wanted to get rid of Howard Dean as chairman. They didnot like Dean's 50 state strategy.

by BDM 2007-05-11 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Then try positive reinforcement as well as negative feedback.

Clinton has a long history as an activist for progressive causes. Why don't you guys try to expand the subjects she is progressive in?

LBJ was ten times as establishment and conservative then hillary is now, but he accomplished more for the progressive cause then Kennedy did or any other president after him.

There are more ways to rome.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Howard Dean said in NH a couple of days ago that as the process goes forward it will get a lot rougher between the candidates. This happened in 2004. Remember the gang-up on Dean in the debates  when it was close to the IA caucus.

(4) weeks to go Dean led Kerry 40-17 nationally.

Clinton has not had any negative press in the last couple of months like Obama AND eDWARDS.

Carl Bernstein's book is coming out in mid June and she is going to take a hit. He will be all over the MSM during that time period. We will then see how solid her numbers are at that time.

by BDM 2007-05-11 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

2008 is a year where substantive change could actually be possible.  Frankly it's necessary.  That's why myself, along with many other progressives, are adamant in their opposition to a Hillary candidacy.  She's a status-quo candidate, even if she is in the Democratic Party.  I have no doubt she'll bring more competence to the White House than the Bushies, but that's not enough.

I'll support her if she wins the nomination.  But I'll do so with a heavy heart.  The vote will be against the GOP, not for anything.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

It's a new way street. One cannot expect HRC to embrace the netroots, without the netroots embracing her.

by proudtobeliberal 2007-05-11 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

two way street***

by proudtobeliberal 2007-05-11 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I don't want HRC to embrace the netroots. If she was to try and do so, she would have to lie like a rug. And we would see right through that (I hope).

She is simply not representative of progressive values. She is a centrist, a pragmatist, uninspiring and overly cautious. 2008 will only come around once, and we can't waste that opportunity installing Bill Clinton 2.0.

by LandStander 2007-05-11 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Why should we embrace her?  What has she done besides show us contempt(except for her appearance on FDL)?  Is the DLC up your alley?  Do you want more of the status quo?  Do you want her surrogates to call you the nutroots at every opportunity?  Face it, the only reason the Faux Noise Channel crowd hate her is because she has a D after her name.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-05-11 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

umm, I'm a bonafide Deaniac. Hope this answers your question.

by proudtobeliberal 2007-05-11 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

wow, that really sounds similar to republicans who say, "Why don't you leave the country" type of argument.

by proudtobeliberal 2007-05-11 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I would like to see substantive change too. I think all of the top 3 candidates have very similar positions and would govern in a very similar way. Each of the top 3 represent some part of the status quo within the Democratic Party. In my opinion none would bring about any radical level of change but would try to bring about change in increments that are politically possible.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

that's such a cop out. I may support Edwards over Obama, but I would never claim that Obama is a status quo candidate or Edwards. I would make that statement about Hillary.

by bruh21 2007-05-11 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I would, I see little difference between Obama and Hillary on substance, and Edwards reminds me of an old style labor-dem.

Dean and Bill are the only the only candidates I remember that weren't status quo. And despite what people think in 2 candidates in 15 years is a lot.

Bill made the Dems the party of fiscal responsibility. Dean took this party national again.

All these candidates are simply building further upon what's already there. But they're all damn good builders.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

or maybe you can dispute the premise that polls this far out anywhere exept in Iowa even mean anything much exept for fundraising.

by nevadadem 2007-05-11 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

True, but they're still fun to talk about.

by Ernst 2007-05-12 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I am 34, progressive, gay, and love Hillary.  She's got my vote!  Oh, and I have a job and economics matters.

by sterkt 2007-05-11 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

If being a neo-liberal means supporting pro-choice, gay marriage, gun control, unions, and civil liberties, then damnit call me a neo-liberal.

by proudtobeliberal 2007-05-11 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I'm 22, progressive, gay, hispanic, grew up in the east village of NYC, my parents arent college educated, and i grew up in housing projects- and i also support Hillary -

Hillary took the plunge in the early 90's on uni. healthcare, it was a hell of a lot less popular than it is now. Not progressive?

She was also the first of the top 3 dem. candidates to release a statement on gonzales v planned parenthood. Not progressive?

She's been consistent on Iraq - called for phased redeployment over two years ago. Same as Obama, and while Edwards says he is for complete removal of the troops, on "This Week" w/ George Stephanopolous he wavered on that stance. Time's article also paints a murkey picture on his stance quoting him with saying "You'd probably have to leave combat troops in the areas where combat was the greatest." What the heck does that mean?

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-11 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Voters know about her negatives. Polls are showing they are still picking her. She has survived decades of attacks and is stonger than ever. The negatives are not taking her down and they may be even creating a backlash that is attracting more votes to her.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

If your diaries are any indication what comes from the bash-crowd, she will sail to the nomination with ease.

by georgep 2007-05-12 07:53AM | 0 recs
One of them needs to go...

Either Edwards or Obama needs to drop out...but does that necessarily translate into votes for the other?

That anti-Hillary crowd needs to get behind a single candidate...I don't see that person out there.

by Nazgul35 2007-05-11 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: One of them needs to go...

I think it's still a little early for this.  It's only May.

It is hard to see Hillary picking up either candidate's supporters though.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 09:40AM | 0 recs
Facts say otherwise

She is number one second choice among supporters of both Edwards and Obama.  Edwards supporters especially seem to have her ranked as their number 2.

by dpANDREWS 2007-05-11 10:41AM | 0 recs
not the Edwards supporters I know

and I know a lot of them!

by desmoinesdem 2007-05-11 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: One of them needs to go...

Various polls have shown that if either Obama or Edwards dropped out her lead would actually increase.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 09:48AM | 0 recs
no, David Mizner is right

in his comment near the top of this thread.

Edwards is going to hurt Hillary among working-class whites, while Obama will crush Hillary among under-30s and blacks.

It's better for them both to stay in the race as long as possible.

I do not rule out the possibility that Edwards and Obama will be the last two standing.

by desmoinesdem 2007-05-11 10:57AM | 0 recs
I have a few friends who are HRC supporters

One is an African American professional woman and the other is a caucasian professional woman.  They come from different backgrounds but when I asked them why they supported HRC, one of the reasons is that they admire her grit/her resolve despite most of the media/Republicans and in one of my friends' case the blogosphere putting her down. When people criticize HRC, it makes them more resolved to support and vote for her. They love the fact that she's a strong woman, who has undergone a lot of adversity and she's still standing.

My friends are well-informed. They know about her war vote and corporate ties. I asked one friend about her war vote and my friend replied that other people voted for the war too and why should people just pick on HRC for her war vote. If my friends who happen to be HRC supporters are any indication, I don't think that the war vote is going to be the most salient issue for them.

I think both are firmly in the HRC camp and criticizing HRC won't have any effect on those 2.

Instead of trying to pull HRC down, maybe Obama in particular could talk up his record in advancing progressive causes while he served in the Illinois state senate as well as provide more details about how he would serve the needs of the primary voters that he's trying to attract. I get Obama's campaign literature in the mail quite frequently. Other than his opposition to the Iraq war in the beginning, I don't see anything specific in the mailings that he sends. It's very general language and it's very meta too!! He needs to lay out in specific terms what he intends to do for ordinary citizens. In my view, elections are about meeting the self-interest of voters. What does he plan to do for people? Particularly women, since that's one demographic that he's falling behind compared to HRC.

IMHO, I don't think his women's outreach program is going to be very effective. I watched Mrs. Obama's video presentation on Obama's website. I didn't take anything away from it. She mostly talked about the difficulty in a working mother juggling both work and family. That's great and it might help working mothers identify with her and the Obama campaign more. But I didn't hear anything in that entire presentation about what she was going to do to help women with that work/family imbalance. As a young single women, I could not identify with her b/c I don't share those same concerns. Single women and divorced women have different issues than married women with children, which is all I'm getting from the Obama campaign as it relates to their women's outreach.

I'm still undecided by the way so I hope that people don't misconstrue this post as for HRC and against Obama. That's certainly not the case. I'm just trying to provide my perspective....  

by ademption 2007-05-11 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a few friends who are HRC supporters

Are these people gonna vote in the primaries?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-05-11 09:44AM | 0 recs
Oh, most definitely

they're what do you call it? Umm, people who vote in all elections are called supervoters right? Something like that right?

I also have another acquaintance, an African-American male/lawyer, who also intends to support HRC. I didn't count him in the above post, because he's trying to work himself up the ladder of the Mont. Co., MD Democratic party establishment and I'm not sure if his support of HRC is based on insider connections or what.

All 3 are definitely going to vote for HRC in the Maryland primaries next year to answer your question.....

by ademption 2007-05-11 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a few friends who are HRC supporters

I don't know about ademption, but my Clinton-supporting friends sure will. They'll donate, call, flyer, everything. They love her. Far more than I love my candidate, in fact.

by BingoL 2007-05-11 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

 Iowa and New Hampshire are everything because I don 't think Hillary going in as the frontrunner can survive losing both when the biggest doubt among voters about her is her electability. Losing Iowa won't be that big a deal for her if she wins New Hampshire but what I think will be the biggest blow to her is the independants are going to beat her in the state. Bush in 2000 went hard right on McCain and discounted the McCain momentum as "caused by independant voters". Hillary's problem is that if independants reject her it feeds into the perception that she would be our worst general election candidate and unlike McCain of 2000 Edwards and Obama are more than acceptable to partisan democrats. That's why Hillary has been focusing on New Hampshire so much, it's the most important state by far in the race even more than Iowa which if Edwards wins would be useless unless he follows it up in the granite state.

by nevadadem 2007-05-11 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

A Rovian strategy would be to attack Hillary's biggest strength, which is Bill. It's not going to happen in a primary, though, because there would be a backlash, and you would want him on your side in the general election.

by clarkent 2007-05-11 09:47AM | 0 recs
look, Obama and Edwards aren't stupid
they know that this nomination is first about Hillary, if she is seen the way she has been portrayed in media the last 2 weeks she wins. The Iraq war vote is simply not enough to stop her from the nomination. Her team is too good at fudging the issue with non -apoligy apologies ect...for Hillary to stopped it's going to have to be on the "polarizing" image and doubts are going to have to be raised about whether she both can win the general election and if she did
whther she is the type of leader that can bring about change, her 1993 health care debacle is fair game. If Dem voters think it's off limits to talk about Hillary's percieved weaknesses than her nomination is in fact inevitable, Obama and Edwards have to show democraes why Hillary isn't the best person to lead the 2008 ticket, they have to be tactfull about it but a positive case just isn't going to be enough.
by nevadadem 2007-05-11 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: look, Obama and Edwards aren't stupid

They will have to sharpen the debate and go after her just like previous campaigns have done to a front runner.. Why would you spend all of that time and money to not fight for the nomination?

This will also happen in the republican primary. They will go after each other very hard.

by BDM 2007-05-11 10:38AM | 0 recs
That would be something to see ...

Democrats attacking a former Democratic President with approvals still up in the 60s.

Yeah that would be reeeeeeaaaal smart.

Not.

by dpANDREWS 2007-05-11 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: That would be something to see ...

Exactly.

by clarkent 2007-05-11 10:43AM | 0 recs
my thoughts

These will not be well received here, judging by prior deletions. Maybe I wasn't diplomatic enough. Anyway...

I think the netroots simultaneously 1) kamikaze'd Obama for making ANY alliances with Democratic establishment people whatsoever, when it is an obvious political necessity; and 2) lost sight of the big picture that Hillary has no connection to Democratic voters at all.

So they pounded Obama relentlessly for acknowledging the depleted nature of the military, and for being honest that 100% insta-withdrawal is simply NOT POSSIBLE. Not to mention the MySpace thing; instead of at least admitting that it was very two sided, the netroots clubbed Obama with it for days, as "shitting on his supporters" and similarly vituperative "coverage".

Instead, as netroots began drifting away from Edwards (in terms of perceived viability for the primary - not in stated support), Clinton-creature Richardson (!!) got fawning coverage for obvious WITHDRAW ALL TROOPS NOW pandering, and Obama got a sledgehammer to the face. And Edwards got lots of promotion as a benchmark, even though Edwards' litany of admitted mistakes and recent conversions makes the credibility of all his grandiose promises a legitimate issue, to say the very least. (bring on the trollratings)

Meanwhile, Hillary's machine has rolled on. The candidate in whom the left is a pretty big stakeholder has been ground down by an MSM that has turned on him, and the netroots alt-media which insists on an unrealistic antiwar litmus test. (Does anyone even realize that moving 150,000 troops, tanks, logistics, staff, munitions, and vehicles out of a country takes time??) It would take a minimum of three months WITHOUT having to cover for the retreat!

I guess I am just amazed. Obama was unequivocally liberal in his past. He has made some compromises going forward, as everybody has to do. But how much more marketable of a vehicle for liberalism can you get--and if he has been captured by The Establishment to some extent, can you realistically expect someone else to withstand the pressure better, while maintaining liberal credibility? Here you have a guy who has ~57-34 approval/disapproval even as ~45% of voters perceive him as "liberal," with a 97 percent voting rating.

One more note. Hillary's numbers are statistically virtually unchanged from Gallup's last poll, when it was about 10 points closer of a race. She is just as hated, but she is regaining in terms of perceived viability. Hillary would not only sell the Democratic base out, she would resuscitate the Republican base like nothing else. The GOP Congress, a corrupt cesspit-tumor that clearly needs another round of electoral chemotherapy, would get a new lease on life to keep stealing.

And Hillary would turn a 54-45 rout into a 51-48 status-quo-ante election. Negatives are the closest thing to gravity in politics, and I haven't seen anybody beat it. Maybe Hillary can. But is the Clintons' record of 'loyalty' worth the near-certainty of a poorer GE showing, or eight years' investment of trust? (It would either be eight years of Hillary or a Hillary defeat in 2012.) I don't think so.

It's going to be Obama or Hillary, folks. The MSM to the left of and including Murdoch is with Hillary.

by jforshaw 2007-05-11 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: my thoughts

bingo- what I don't get is it's one thing to say electability shouldn't be the only factor but what's going on when people are making their choice without considering almost half the country hates our choice?

by bruh21 2007-05-11 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: my thoughts

bruh I'm orignially from New Jersey, I've spoken with a few soft Hillary supporters and convinced them to support Obama by gently pointing out that Hillary is DOA to almost half of voters nationwide, also pointing out that Republicans hate her so much that even if she won a narrow victory she would be opposed by every GOP lawmaker on everything isn't a bad idea either. The she's done a great job fighting for the cause but she is not the right person to lead us now approach is the best way to stop her.

by nevadadem 2007-05-11 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: my thoughts

Hillary hasn't even done a great job "fighting for the cause." Billary were the handmaidens of the biggest Democratic electoral catastrophe since Reagan, if not since 1952. Bill's subsequent popularity was a function of his "steadfast" opposition to the GOP steamroller born of Bill's (and the Congressional Democrats') own incompetence.

by jforshaw 2007-05-11 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: my thoughts

Not to mention that Bill and Hillary subsidized a bunch of incompetent cadres rather than let anyone who wasn't part of their "trusted" inner circle have a shot.

by jforshaw 2007-05-11 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: my thoughts

Everyone is getting pounded by the netroots, not just Obama. We have a right to be critical of our candidates, and every single criticism of Obama that you listed above was warranted, not blown out of proportion.

by clarkent 2007-05-11 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: my thoughts
Exactly.
by horizonr 2007-05-12 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: my thoughts
You should write this up as a diary. I will recommend it.
by horizonr 2007-05-12 02:59PM | 0 recs
MAYBE...IT'S BECAUSE OF CLINTON HERSELF...

Maybe it is because Obama and Edwards...Maybe it is because attacks against the netroots...Maybe it is because the Democratic base...Maybe it is because the red flags...Maybe it is because the established media...Maybe the Clinton machine...

Maybe Clinton is doing so well in the polls is because Democrats actually like, admire, and respect her.

Maybe Democrats like Clinton because of a lifetime of working for progressive causes advocating for the rights of women, children, migrants, gays, healthcare, etc.

Maybe Democrats respect Clinton who has been competing in a man's world and beating men at their own game all of her life.  To do this, she's had to be twice as smart, twice as good, and twice as tough to even be considered their equal.  Is it any wonder that she's calculated and cautious?  

Maybe Democrats respect Clinton because she has taken every nasty punch that the GOP has thrown her way and still ended up beating them.

In the latest Marist poll, when asked about Clinton and her Iraq war position, a full 91% of Democrats say that they would support her.

Of these 91%, half say that her Iraq position makes it "more likely" they would support her, the other half say that it makes "no difference" whatsoever. The remaining 9% of Democrats say that her Iraq position would make it "less likely" that they would support her.

Maybe Democrats see, not a perfect candidate, but a winner, nonetheless.

Maybe, it's Clinton.

by ChicagoDude 2007-05-11 10:10AM | 0 recs
Great post!

Well said.

What many on the far left fringe of party don't realize is that not everyone thinks like them.  Many keep posting how "nobody likes Hillary" and other such nonsense.   Well guess what - obviously some people like her a lot.  She is leading.  

My only fear is that the Greenies and Nadarites back some birkenstock wearing protest candidate.  Is Cindy whatshername planning a run?

by dpANDREWS 2007-05-11 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Great post!

The netroots are around 1% or so of voters and even among that 1% there are different levels of interest and engagement. Their interests and the interests of the other 99% of Democratic voters are similar in many ways but there are differences as well. Any Democratic nominee will have a complex task of bringing them all together and I expect some will support Nader.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Great post!

Anti-Iraq War activist Cindy Sheehan,  Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Elaine Brown, Former Black Panther Party leader, Kat Swift, and others may run for the Green Party nomination.

Ralph Nader has said he will run if Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich fail to be nominated by The Democratic Party.

Congreman Bob Barr, Jim Gilcrhist, and Alan Keyes may run on the Constitution Party.

Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Hagel, Michael Savage, and others are considering runs.

Hopefully third party runs on the far left will be balanced by third party runs on the far right.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Great post!

Nader wont get the same pull - theres too much Bush v. Gore 2000 animosity there

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-11 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: MAYBE...IT'S BECAUSE OF CLINTON HERSELF...

Maybe, but I doubt it.  I don't think she'll ever rise above 35% in the polls.  Especially since Obama is purposefully saving his big punches for when the campaign really gets going (from the New Yorker profile).  The only thing Hillary has shown me throughout her career is cynicism and opportunism.  I hope the Obama and Edwards campaigns hammer at this in the coming months.

A tidbit that ChicagoDude left out from that Marist poll:

"34% of Democrats who support Hillary Clinton want a strong leader, and 21% are interested in a candidate that will bring change.

Backers of Barack Obama are most likely to want change. 41% of his supporters want their nominee to be an agent of change, and 19% are interested in a strong leader."

It seems that for the Clinton supporters, gaining power and holding it will be enough.  For the Obama camp, the election is only the beginning.  Maybe that is why candidates such as Obama and Edwards get more support in the netroots.  It goes to what Chris Bowers posted further down the thread.  Hillary being a Democrat means next to nothing for me.  All that shows is that she'll be less bad than the Republican nominee.  That is not enough.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: MAYBE...IT'S BECAUSE OF CLINTON HERSELF...
I agree.  her standing with her own party is shaky and the right hates her.  her negs. are thru the roof.
If she is nominee, we will lose because of this.
it does not help that the msm is cheerleading for hillary.  like today.  of all the candidates on both sides, whenever she is speaking like today, they cut away and show her.  They do not do that for anyone else.  They ignore most of the candidates or do comparisons with the others to Hillary.
They keep the inevitiable myth going.  
by vwcat 2007-05-11 11:38AM | 0 recs
Yawn...

Campaign 2008 as of May 11, 2007...yawn...absolutely nothing has happened since the rise & leveling off (but not falling) of Obama and the person everyone is rooting for, Elizabeth Edwards.  Aside from that the only story is the primary calander and the continuing tragedy of Iraq.  

by howardpark 2007-05-11 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn...

Clinton has had around 35% support in almost every single poll that has been made for this primary election since December 2004.  Not much has changed.

by enarjay 2007-05-11 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

the more people who attack her, the stronger she becomes. Republicans have been attacking her for years. I think she is a strong woman.

by proudtobeliberal 2007-05-11 10:16AM | 0 recs
God Bless Hillary Clinton

She will make a fantastic nominee.  With her skills (not to mention Bill's) we can count on a well organized, well run, fierce campaign that will be playing offense against the GOP, not defense.

by dpANDREWS 2007-05-11 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: God Bless Hillary Clinton

You have really drank the kool aide.

I won't lift a finger to help her get elected except to vote for her if she is the nominee. I will not try to convince any of my democratic friends who oppose her to vote for her. I will tell them to vote their conscience.

by BDM 2007-05-11 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: God Bless Hillary Clinton

My conscience says we need to get the GOP out of the White House in 2008 before our country completes the transistion to some form of fascist theocracy. I have no problem supporting any of the Democratic nominees even longshot second tier ones if they somehow ended up as the nominee.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: God Bless Hillary Clinton

Hillary would be better than any R.  I'll vote for her if she wins the nomination.  However, I do believe it would be Gore 2000/Kerry 2004 redux.  Very uninspiring.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: God Bless Hillary Clinton

I thought Gore was very progressive and Kerry was as well to some extent. Both would have made excellent presidents.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: God Bless Hillary Clinton

I was referring to their lackluster presidential campaigns bogged down by consultants and lame proposals.  Kerry and Gore both would've made great presidents, but their campaigns were too cautious and calculating.  Considering that same establishment is in the Hillary camp, I'd expect nothing different.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: God Bless Hillary Clinton

Clinton and Obama both have the same establishment backing and DC consultants. I think both Clintons have a better political ear than Kerry and Gore though and would tend to override consultants.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: God Bless Hillary Clinton
Hillary is a republican in Dem clothing.
She is more of Bush.
by vwcat 2007-05-11 11:39AM | 0 recs
Hey

When I am posting silly BS about the "seductive groove" of HillC you will be right on the Kool-Aide charge.  But I won't be posting nonsense like that.

Trust me.

by dpANDREWS 2007-05-11 04:44PM | 0 recs
Do you have an actual CASE against Obama?
Make it, please -- with your forehand, not your backhand.
by horizonr 2007-05-12 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Clinton's advantages include one that is generally unstated.  This is payback time for some.  Payback for the impeachment.  Payback for over a decade of negative, slimy comments about Hillary (and Chelsea).  Payback for the MSM bias to Bush and the Republicans.

The Obama-Edwards thing has gotten nasty and stayed nasty on the net.  That's going to make it much harder for either Obama or Edwards to oust Hillary who is the leader among second choices.

The strategy of each campaign is pretty clear.

Edwards has to win Iowa and get a big media boost there (that is the uncertain part; winning 76% of the caucus vote in Iowa did Tom Harkin no good in 1992 and out performing expectations did nothing for Steve Forbes in 2000).  That will typically earn a ten point boost in New Hampshire which may be enough to get a media-friendly come from behind win in New Hampshire.  Then try to pull a Kerry.

Obama needs to finish second or better in Iowa and either glide on home from a win or edge Iowa winner Edwards in New Hampshire in a close three way race.  Then Obama is the one with the mojo and February 5 confirms it.

A Hillary win in Iowa would clinch the deal in New Hampshire and nationally.  She can survive a close second (maybe) if Obama is KO'd by a bad third in Iowa.  She can't finish third.  That's poison given the enemies lurking around gleefully waiting for her fall.

Nobody knows what effect, if any, Nevada has on the nomination.  Played straight with Hillary's huge edge it becomes her trump card, crushing the mojo of Edwards or Obama in Iowa and sealing the deal in New Hampshire.  Ignored?  Oh, well.  Personally, I thing a strong performance by Richardson in a low turnout Nevada would get ignored much as Delaware results were for a cycle or two.  It steps on the media narrative too much.  

by David Kowalski 2007-05-11 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Harkin was the incumbent senator in 1992 and nobody competed for IA. This time every one is competing in IA so the expectation game is different. Clinton being the front runner is expected to do at least a close second. If she comes in 3rd. She will lose NH.

by BDM 2007-05-11 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Pretty much what I said, although I made the mistake of assuming that the people on this board would know that Tom Harkin is a Democratic Senator from Iowa.  As I said, a third place finish for Hillary would be poison.  A second place showing (to Edwards) leaves her with a real chance.  That's your point and I agree with it.

In summary, Edwards must win Iowa.  Clinton and Obama must have a decent second.  This doesn't seem like 1988 where Dukakis could finish a nice third and win New Hampshire because Gephardt had nothing outside of Iowa.

by David Kowalski 2007-05-11 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I think Clinton and Obama can survive losses in IA and NH because of their position in other states afterwards. Edwards has to win IA.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Is there a difference between finishing second (a loss) and finishing third (a disaster?).  My gut feel is that second is Ok if Edwards is first, at least in Iowa.  Third has the tinge of being a loser among losers.

by David Kowalski 2007-05-13 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Good post.  Though I'm supporting Obama, I've mostly refrained from Edwards bashing.  I think either one would make a fantastic nominee.  It's important that Obama and Edwards, and their supporters, take aim at Clinton instead of each other.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 11:00AM | 0 recs
You won't vote?

Hey, if Rudy McRomney ends up being the President be sure to give yourself a giant pat on the back.

by dpANDREWS 2007-05-11 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: You won't vote?

the fear is that if HRC is nominated that will happen anyhow.

by bruh21 2007-05-11 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Since RobLiberal likes to post Clinton state polls, I thought I would post this Latest poll for SC.

Insider Advantage is out with a new poll in South Carolina. Last month, IA came out with shocking results on the Democratic side, showing Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton by 14 points. Obama remains ahead of Clinton in this month's IA survey, but his lead is now down to 4 points:

Democrats
Obama 31
Clinton 27
Edwards 16

by BDM 2007-05-11 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I would still have doubts about IA polls. I do think Clinton and Obama are the top 2.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

See if it is a poll that shows Clinton losing than it is a bad poll.

The interesting thing about this poll is that 21% ARE UN-DECIDED. tHIS WHAT i WOULD EXPECT IN MOST STATE POLLS THIS FAR OUT FROM THE ELECTION.

by BDM 2007-05-11 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

It is suspect to me that the only polls showing Obama ahead are from Republican polling firms.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

This polling outfit has showed Clinton ahead in GA and Alabama and othe SE states. The only state poll it has shown Clinton behind is SC

by BDM 2007-05-11 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

polls aren't just suspecious because you don't like the results

by bruh21 2007-05-11 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

They are suspicious when they are out of line with various other polls done by polling firms with a better track record.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

your reasons before didn't state that

by bruh21 2007-05-11 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Hillary Clinton will win the presidency of the United States because on DAY 1, she will know exactly what to do.

Its all about DAY 1.

by superetendar 2007-05-11 11:20AM | 0 recs
by ChicagoDude 2007-05-11 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: RCP SOUTH CAROLINA POLL AVERAGE CLINTON +4.5%

That is true, but it is not a large margin. This poll is the most recent poll.

I find it interesting of how the Clinton people become so defensive or derisive of a poll that doesn't favor their candidate.

by BDM 2007-05-11 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: RCP SOUTH CAROLINA POLL AVERAGE CLINTON +4.5%

not true- its not a bad poll for Clinton- its actually a very good poll -

The last I.A. poll had her down by 14, and now she's down by 4. Thats a 10 pt spread loss by Obama - Much like the Rasmussen swing of 10pts. If I were Obama's camp i would suggest getting worried that the only poll that had Obama aboce Clinton in S.C. had a 10 pt change

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-11 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months
There was progress with both Edwards and Obama until the bloggers decided to go negative big time on Obama and never let up.  Some of us tried to say stuff about it and to warn you but, no one was listening because they were too busy flaming.  I took the step of trying to warn Edwards fans that the media was making more of the haircut than had been thought it would be and I got slammed by them for my trouble.
Hillary will win because people are far too busy in their little space, taking offense to everything and looking for every little thing to post negative.  There are some who only do negative diaries.
Until people get into a better mindset, and people like Matt keeps from flaming everyday with the Obama supporters, things won't change.
People take their cues of the mood from you guys and if you are always posting negatives on obama and slamming every little thing regardless of what  is said, or proof to the contrary, this will keep going.
by vwcat 2007-05-11 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I like competition but not attacks especially GOP style ones. I try to focus in my mind on how any of the top 3 can craft a general election campaign that will work.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

This is a contact sport. It is entirely appropriate to talk about Clinton's electability, the people she surrounds herself with(like Mark Penn) her vote on Iraq and the likeability issue.

Believe me if Clinton was behind she and her team would go after the front runner with vengeance.

by BDM 2007-05-11 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

2008 is not a sport it is about the future of this country. We will have a choice whether we want to continue on a course toward fascism or whether we will turn back. Destroying those who are on the same side does nothing to further the cause.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Sharpening the differences with your political opponent has always been a part of American politics.

Bush and his people always used the mantra if you criticized him or his policies then you must hate him. I see a lot of this with Clinton supporters.

by BDM 2007-05-11 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months
Many do actually say they hate Clinton.
Many say they will vote third party.
by robliberal 2007-05-11 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months
I'd really like to see a statistician do a linear regression correlating poll position at this point in presidential primaries with eventual outcomes. As near as I can tell, lately, in contested primaries, the early frontrunner almost always wins. The Dem/2004 frontrunner was Kerry, GOP/2000 was Bush, and GOP/1996 was Dole. Before that it gets less predictable, since Clinton won neither Iowa nor NH, and Gary Hart (according to Wikipedia) was the early frontrunner for the dems in 1988. But the media environment has changed in the last two decades, and I think its reasonable to expect that the trend of the past 3 primaries will continue.
by gsteff 2007-05-11 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

kERRY WAS NOT THE FRONT RUNNER. lIEBERMAN WAS AND THEN dEAN. mANY THOUGHT kERRY WAS GOING TO DROP OUT IN sEPT OF 2003, BECAUSE HE DIDNOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY. i BELIEVE HE TOOK OUT NEW MORTGAGE AND LOAN TO FUND HIS CAMPAIGN.

by BDM 2007-05-11 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Kerry was not the front runner in 2004 before the primaries. It was Lieberman and then Dean

by BDM 2007-05-11 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I never would've thought I'd see so many Hillary supporters on this site.  She generally gets 3% in the blog polls.  Maybe their just swarming MyDD today.

The inevitability strategy backfired against McCain in the Republican field.  Iraq was the big reason.  It doesn't seem to have done so here, yet.  I do feel that it will eventually.  I'd be very discouraged in the progressive movement if it didn't.  I'm already surprised that so many people have been fooled already.

Hillary has only one conviction, that she deserves to be present.  Whatever means it takes to get there will suffice.

-Sigh-

by dmfox 2007-05-11 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

they're, not their.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months
I agree with you.  She is the whatever it takes and her reason for running has zero to do with the country, making life better or the people.
It is always about Hillary to Hillary.
She gets off on power trips and like any addict will do anything to get her fix.
by vwcat 2007-05-11 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

All you are repeating are Rush Limbaugh talking points. What is the point in that. I have never understood the hatred and prejudice so many on the left share with the far right about the Clintons.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

no he's telling the truth.

by bruh21 2007-05-11 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I personally would welcome an anti-Hillary charge by the blogosphere.  Enough beating up on Obama and Edwards.  I appreciate how much Chris and Matt keep the pressure on all candidates, but Clinton deserves the most of it.

For those Hillary supporters out there, do you really want the DLC back in the White House?  Because that is what you are supporting.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Obama has DLC supporters as well. He has extensive corporate backing. Edwards has trial lawyer backing. All 3 have backing from various big money interests. There will be little if any difference between the 3 on that.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months
Having friends in Business is not DLC.
DLC has a set of rules and ideas.  They back the war, nafta, giving the store away to business with the people suffering.
by vwcat 2007-05-11 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

That is your opinion. Corporate interests will back any of the 3 if they are the nominee as will the DLC.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

At least they didnot try to get Howard Dean fired from head of the party after the 2006 campaign like Clinton's people.

by BDM 2007-05-11 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

True, but not to nearly the same extent as Clinton.  Also, both Obama and Edwards have shown a great deal more conviction in their careers for progressive causes than Clinton has.  Clinton had her progressive stand in the early 70s, and not much since.

For those who say Obama is just as gutless, I'd point them to his Illinois Senate term, his work as a community organizer, and his voting record in the Senate (one of the most liberal in the chamber).  And for one to equate an Edwards with a Clinton administration, you would have to ignore Edwards' entire campaign platform.

They may have some moneyed interests backing them, but they both display a sincerity and will to change things that Clinton just doesn't.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Clinton has a lot stronger record on progressive causes and is to the left of Obama and a lot further to the left than Edwards has been historically.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Which causes, besides reproductive issues, are you referring to?

by dmfox 2007-05-11 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Just about all of them.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Specifics?

Certainly not war policy.  Not on trade policy either.  What about freedom of speech?  Was not Clinton a co-sponsor of the flag-burning amendment?

by dmfox 2007-05-11 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Well Obama has voted the same way as Clinton every time with the War and said he would support her de-auth. He really isnt much more progressive than she is on the war.

As for Freedom of Speach - read Dennis v. US (1985)

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-11 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Again, I totally agree with you, Fox

by vwcat 2007-05-11 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I remain a firm believer that Senator Clinton, if the Democratic nominee, will became the nation's first woman president, with a comfortable electoral margin.

I expect her to win in New Hampshire and do quite well in Iowa.  But neither state is necessary for her to secure the nomination.  Her husband went on to win the presidency in 1992, and he won neither the primary in Iowa nor New Hampshire.  Their influence has been far diminished since.

Senator Clinton is doing extraordinarily well in almost every state in the nation, with generally commanding leads in most electorally rich states.

Her performance during the first debate simply proved her readiness to serve; she far overshawdowed her rivals.  Her decades in the national public spotlight has demonstrated that she is fully prepared for whatever comes her way.  

Senator Obama was literate, but rather like a brilliant student, he demonstrated that he needs more seasoning before he can commandeer a veteran, much seasoned pro like Senator Clinton.  

He may well be President someday, but unlike so many of the netrooters, it is apparent to many more in the electorate that Senator Obama has much to learn before he gets there.

The silliness of many Netrooters is starting to become more than glaringly obvious.  They have hurled so frequently invective at Senator Clinton, with the commentary "she cannot be elected," that they are now oblivious to many national polls showing her besting any GOP rival.

If she is the Democratic nominee, she will become the nation's first female President.  She will have the experience, as no other candidate running currently does.  She will have as much money in the bank, organizational and field operation support as any candidate as ever had.  And she will have at her side in Bill Clinton quite possibly the most prodigiously talented politician of the past half century.

I admire the passion of the Netrooters.  But faced with the reality of prevailing public opinion, knowledge of organizational and field support, their denial of the success of Senator Clinton is astonishing.  They would rather live in their own unreality.

I believe Senator Clinton indeed will be our next President, and hers will be one of the most progressive administrations ever realized.  Her current Netroot detractors will become the same distant memories--and now not fondly remembered--that were the Nader dissidents of 2000.

In the end, I truly feel sorry for them.

by lambros 2007-05-11 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Your's is an opinion that I totally dis-agree about. If she loses IA BIG 10 PTS PLUS AND NH SHE IS TOAST

by BDM 2007-05-11 11:54AM | 0 recs
The Difference

I think there is one overriding difference between Clinton supporters, and supporters of Obama and Edwards.  Clinton supporters are nostalgic for the Clinton administration years of the 1990s.  Obama and Edwards supporters generally feel that those years were a wasted opportunity, and that 2008 calls for something new.

Some, like Sunbelt, may mistake my passion for something new as Hillary hatred.  It's more like a desire for a new direction.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The Difference

There was a huge difference beween 8 years of Clinton and the past 6 years of Bush much like being on different planets to me since I never thought our country could sink as low as it has. For those who see no difference between the Clinton and Bush years another 8 years of the GOP will likely not be of much concern.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Difference

I do agree that Clinton's presidency was light-years better than Bush's, but the bar for that is not set very high.  In reality, Clinton governed as conservative Democrat, infused by the same DLC hacks now in the Clinton camp.  This led to the loss of Congress, NAFTA, the further erosion of unions, and war rhetoric against Iraq (remember the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act?).  I think the country deserves better than just a reversion to Clinton-era policies.  With the hole we're in, that is simply not enough.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The Difference

re: setting bars. I agree with the other poster that "better than bush" is a pretty pathetic standard. howdy doodie is better than bush. when are we going to look to the future- 2009 when the election is over with? or now?

by bruh21 2007-05-11 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I thought this election is about the future not the past. That is what you would get with a Clinton presidency.

by BDM 2007-05-11 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

This election is about the survival of this country.

By the way would you make that same argument if Gore was running that he was the past as well?

by robliberal 2007-05-11 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

No.  Gore was right on Iraq and right on the environment from the start.  Where was Hillary Clinton (and to be fair, John Edwards) in 2002 when Gore was giving brave, and at the time, unpopular speeches against the war?  Gore would run as the change candidate, backed by his principles, and could pull it off.

by dmfox 2007-05-11 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Gore supported the war in the beginning as well. As for Gore, his negatives in Polls is just as high as Hillary's.

Having that said, I've been a fan of Gore since 2000. I'm also a fan of HRC

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-13 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I agree.  Haven't we had enough dynasty politics this past generation?

by dmfox 2007-05-11 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

It is hilarious to hear you whining about Clinton success. Literally, I'm ROFL!! If you had spent this time showing the positives of your candidates, you could have actually made some headway. I agree with you on everything Chris, except for the 2008 race. Looking forward to more of your frustration.

HAHAHA:

"This is very frustrating. Of course I would support Clinton if she was the nominee, and of course I would rather she become President than any Republican. But, for a number of reasons I laid out in this post, I don't want her to become the nominee. I seriously wonder if I am having any impact whatsoever on preventing a Clinton nomination from happening".

by bsavage 2007-05-11 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Rather than attack Hillary the netroots should court her. You might be surprised what she might do if the left approached her rather than attack her. The constant barrage of attacks from the left is reminiscent of the vast right wing conspiracy of the 90s. Considering her experience, is it any wonder why she seemingly shuts folks out?

by JustaDem 2007-05-11 01:26PM | 0 recs
new South Carolina poll shows Obama ahead

I'm sure we can expect a Rob or George P diary any second now!

by nevadadem 2007-05-11 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: new South Carolina poll shows Obama ahead

No need to worry it is from the same Republican polling firm as before.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Everyone's complaining about Hillary's connections to DLC but the VP of DLC is on Edward's campaign team. And a lot of Obama's aides are ex-Clinton aides. If you're going to say :
"her connection to DLC-nexus consultants that backstab the party for pay and attack the grassroots for fun"

then at least have the decency to say something about the other campaign managers on Obama's and Edwards' campaign.

How about Obama's economic strategists, Jeffrey Liebman, supported a similar plan for social security that Bush promoted. Does that "resonate with the base"???

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-11 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

In my opinion Clinton and Obama have about the same amount of corporate, DLC, and other similar types of support. Edwards has some DLC supporters as well but trial lawyers are more of his financial base than corporate interests. There are anti-DLC, anti-corporate types of candidates in the top tier. It is a normal thing for various interest groups to support candidates who have a chance at the nomination, some even support all 3.

by robliberal 2007-05-11 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Can everyone get off this? Liebman is on board because he's done great work on housing for the poor. It's like if Edwards was a poverty professor who for some reason wanted private social security and therefore the candidate he was advising agreed with that.

It's silly and it has been debunked. Get over it.

by Populista 2007-05-11 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

This is so true.  The big leaguers at this level of politics are all former/ex/used to be/married to/relative of/worked for/advisor to some other candidate.  They are the inside Democratic politics people, who are merely recycled into the latest campaign season, supporting one candidate or the other. There is this pretension here that the Clinton people are some how different than Edwards and Obama's people, when there is less than two or three degrees of separation.  Oh and the reason Hillary's number really doesn't fluctuate is that the people who support her are voting FOR her and not against any other candidate.  

by Kingstongirl 2007-05-11 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Exactly what my comment was pointing out -

None of the campaigns are perfect. They all hire people that have stances that are not in line with the grassroots campaigners. The OP tried to make it seem like it is only Hillary.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-11 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Insider Advantage Poll -
Latest Insider Average poll in S.C. has Obama up by 4%, which is a 10 point spread LOSS to Obama since he was up by 14% on the last I.A. Poll. That is not good news for Obama, its horrible news and reflects the 10 point spread that he lost in Rasmussen -

Even still, Hillary has an average 4.5% lead

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-11 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

That is a very small lead. What is the number of un-decided's in that average?. The un-decided's in the insider advantage poll is 21% which means they are not pushing people to make a choice.

This far out I would expect their to be a high number of un-decided votes in a state primary poll. Any poll with un-decided's under 10% is suspecious to me because the pollster is pushing hard to make the respondent make a choice of a candidate.

by BDM 2007-05-12 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

21% of un-decided's is still an extremely little amount compared to previous cycles, I agree anything less is simply not that trustworthy.

But we don't know which way it's untrustworthy, at least untill Bowers theory gets tested. Then we might...

by Ernst 2007-05-12 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

I misspoke - Edwards employs David Ginsberg of PSB not DLC --

And Populista, its not debunked, he's on Obama's campaign. Just because he does work for the poor doesnt change the fact that he supports SS privatization. And thats just as out of touch with the base as the positions supported by other campaign workers.

None of the campaigns are perfect. They all have their questionable allegiances.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-11 05:20PM | 0 recs
CLINTON'S PROGRESSIVE CRED

'I personally have tremendous worries about, if she became President, neoliberals who force through economic policy that Republicans like more than Democrats, aka the pending trade deal...'

Chris:

You write with conviction regarding your concerns with how a Clinton Presidency may affect policies that are important to you.  This week, there were two events that illustrate the reality that politicians don't always behave in ways that progressive conventional wisdom suggests they might.

On Monday, a bill that would have made it easier to import cheaper legal prescription medicine into the US lost in the Senate by a vote of 49-40.  The only presidential candidate from the Senate who voted was Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat, who favored easing the importation of less-costly drugs.

On Friday, the Washington Post disclosed that the hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its sub-prime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards himself has pilloried in his presidential campaign.  

Clearly, cheaper drugs and predatory lending are both issues in which progressives have a stake.   That Obama missed the drug import vote, or, that Edwards worked for Fortress does not, or should not, undermine their progressive cred, in my view.  However, I am shocked that there was no discussion of these failings on MyDD or the progressive blogsphere at large.

Similarly, there is a conspicuous lack of praise with regards to Clinton's principled vote.

Senator Clinton was the only 2008 candidate to take time from her campaign to vote for a bill that would greatly benefit the poor at the expense of the pharmaceutical industry.  Many would argue that her vote was in keeping with a lifetime of advocating for progressive causes.  In any event, her effort should be acknowledged and applauded.  Further, her action should, to some extent, assuage your concern about how she as President would continue to advocate for progressive issues.

Conventional wisdom doesn't always withstand the scrutiny of reality.  Here, Clinton took a principled stand for an important progressive cause, while her rivals for the Democratic nomination faltered.    

We have every right to demand that politicians are forthright with regards to their positions.  In turn, it is incumbent upon the progressive community to return the same intellectual honesty, and give credit where credit is due.

by ChicagoDude 2007-05-12 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S PROGRESSIVE CRED

ChicagoDude you mean have the progressive blogosphere give credit where credit is due instead of attack Hillary for not being progressive enough? Are you out of your mind! just a wee bit of sarcasm

by sepulvedaj3 2007-05-12 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months

Maybe the two candidates have problems of their own which have nothing to do with Clinton.  There are MANY who can't warm up to Edwards.  Given his overall anemic (and sinking) poll numbers it is obvious that most Democrats don't find him appealing enough to be their first choice (and delving deeper into poll numbers, not even their second choice for most.)  Speaking for myself, I can't reconcile the rhetoric with the man.  While a good man, his candidacy so far seems like a lot of political opportunism to me.  Everybody has an opinion, but Edwards' very low numbers across the board (all national polls, all state polls aside from Iowa) tell me that others are assessing his candidacy the same way.

Obama is having major problems of his own.  Whenever he speaks in front of Democratic "issues" audiences he not just gets lukewarm responses (which would indicate that he was just off his game,) the reports actually have it that he actually "bombs" and "fails," that Democratic rank-and-file audiences walk away from the event entirely dissatisfied.  Those reports are in stark contrast to reports of enthusiastic crowds when his events are scheduled for a more general audience.   The various Democratic interest groups make up the core rank-and-file constutency, and Obama's reported performance problems in front of them have to be considered a major problem at this point.  It plays right into the inexperience concerns.  

For example, he "failed" in front of the very influential firefighters union convention, which prompted Matt Stoller to comment "He's just not that into running for President."

It may be boring for Obama to have to speak to unions and issues group, but it is important to connect with them on an emotional level.  If he can't do that (and indications are that he falls flat many times) his candidacy can't flourish.

Then you have the gaffes, which are the result of boneheaded mistakes made by the campaigns.  
Clinton wins almost by default, because she and her campaign appear steady, very put together, while Obama's and Edwards' campaigns trade weekly mistakes that get wide play.   If how you put together your campaign staff and how "on message" they are is any indication, Edwards and Obama's problems with their campaign staffs don't bode well for later.  

The "failures" here don't lie with the netroots not "doing enough", but with the candidates' having their own problems connecting.  Nobody can do that for them.

by georgep 2007-05-12 11:35AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads