Why Hillary's Winning

Think Progress brings us this most remarkable theory on the timing of the Libby commutation floated by Bill Kristol yesterday on Fox News Sunday:

Here's why the president acted the way he did. He knew Bill Clinton was joining Hillary in Iowa on July 4th. [LAUGHTER] No, I'm serious. So on July 2d, Ed Gillespie, who's a very canny Republican operative, said, 'Let's pardon Libby. Clinton will rise to the bait, and we can spend the last half of the week debating the unbelievable Clinton pardons against the defensible Bush pardon.' I regard this as an extremely clever Machiavellian move by the president. It cheers me up about the Bush White House, and I'm really heartened.

Well, if it was bait, the Clintons sure took it, both having made public statements condemning the commutation. And sure enough, their engagement on the issue did lead to a change of subject to Bill's controversial pardons. But despite the conventional wisdom of the Sunday morning talkers, I hardly think it hurt Hillary. Certainly it got the discussion off the positive aspects of the Clinton years and onto one negative, but the discussion also both kept the Libby commutation in the news AND served to further cement voters' association of Hillary with those 8 years in the 90s that Democratic primary voters remember with such fondness. And actually, I think it went a step further. More than merely associating Clinton with her husband's presidency, by putting Hillary on the defensive about Bill's pardons the discussion seemed to imply Hillary's complicity in the pardons, an implication that was made explicit by Scott Stanzel in a White House briefing on Thursday (h/t digby for the transcript):

I would say that it is amazing to me that they can -- with what they did on January 20, 2001, they can criticize the President for issuing a commutation -- his fourth -- insomuch as they issued -- President Clinton issued 141 pardons on January 20th...

Now whether this was a Freudian slip, revealing the true nature of the resentment the right has for Hillary (two for the price of one and all) or if it was the result of a concerted strategy, the fact is it merely served to further undermine in voters' minds Barack Obama's claim that:

The only person who would probably be prepared to be our president on Day 1 would be Bill Clinton -- not Hillary Clinton

Considering the fact that Hillary consistently polls higher than Obama on "experience" and "strong leader" measures despite having only a few more years in the senate under her belt, it's hard not to conclude that voters simply trust Hillary to be president because on some level they feel she already has been. Which is Barack Obama's biggest challenge -- how to ask voters to "turn the page" on the beloved Clinton years in addition to the Bush years when he's running against such a tangible reminder of the Clinton presidency. David Brooks touched on this tension on Meet The Press yesterday, but I think he draws the wrong conclusion.

Whether you think the slander at Libby was politics as usual or the commutation was politics as usual, the bottom line people are going to take away from this is that people in Washington don't play by the rules the rest of us do.  So for--Clinton's essential problem is, is she politics as usual or is she a change?  Obama is now the change, she's politics in--as usual.

The flaw in his argument is that change doesn't necessarily have to mean something new, it just needs to mean something different from what we currently have. In fact Hillary's new campaign slogan seems to tap into this idea:

STRENGTH + EXPERIENCE = CHANGE

Brooks's conclusion also relies too much on the typical Brooks/Broder/Klein trope that people despise Washington. It's not Washington people hate, rather it's what Washington has become under George W Bush; it seems to me people desperately long to return to a time when Washington worked, as they feel it did during the 90s. Hillary's ascension in the polls as well as Al Gore's continued strength despite not having declared would seem to back this up and it would certainly explain why, as PsiFighter37 concludes in his excellent analysis, Al Gore's entrance into the race would hurt Hillary the most. Perhaps there's an element of nostalgia to it but more likely I think it reveals a subtext of redemption that's running beneath Clinton's campaign, the desire to reclaim what was wrongfully taken, a narrative that currently appears to be more powerful and more appealing to Democratic voters than Obama's new kind of politics theme.

Which leads me to wonder, if there was Machiavellian scheme, is helping to solidify a Clinton nomination the White House's goal or their worst nightmare? Conventional wisdom would seem to be that, as Fred Barnes verbalized on FNS, a Clinton nomination would rally the demoralized Republican base. But with Bill Clinton's popularity on one hand and disapproval of Bush virtually uniting the country on the other, could a return to the Clinton years actually be a winning campaign theme in the general election as well?

Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Scooter Libby (all tags)

Comments

99 Comments

Re: Why Hillary's Winning

This is why only John Edwards can defeat Hilary Clinton on real issues.  Obama's personality driven candidacy is bound to fail.

John Edwards can defeat Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Barack Obama, with all his money and fawning press, has made no dent in the polls against Clinton since January.  He failed.  

by littafi 2007-07-09 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

It's only July, dude.  No one is voting on anything for the next 6 months.  Obama's strategy right now certainly isn't working, though.  He needs to realize the value of his personality in the campaign and go after Hillary.  He talks a lot about vision but he needs to show us his vision.  He hasn't done it yet.  Hopefully, he can.

by Reece 2007-07-09 06:14AM | 0 recs
Has Edwards made a dent?

I don't see it.

You're right about him though. I don't know if it's enough to overtake two people.

Everything is riding on Iowa for him.

by Nedsdag 2007-07-09 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

People aren't gonna really pay attention till after Labor day, at the earliest.  Besides, I think Obama and Edwards would be making clearer distinctions between themselves and Hillary the closer the primaries we get.   Lets face it, whether we like it or not(and I don't like it .. even though I am not a HRC fan) nominating Hillary will be a disaster for down ticket races.  Not only that, but she's the wing nuts last great hope.  What I mean by that is that her nomination will temporarily take the wing nuts off life support.  We all know the right hates her with a passion.  Enough passion to drive large numbers of those asshats out to the polls.  The air is let out of their balloon so to speak if Edwards or Obama wins the nomination.  I can tell you what I am concerned with.  The Dems can win PA-6(which is where I live).  We won't win it with Hillary as the nominee.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-07-09 06:27AM | 0 recs
that's my view as well

The GOP is in such disarray right now, and the one thing that could send independents swinging back their way would be Hillary at the top of our ticket.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-09 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

How is the air left out of the GOP balloon if Edwards wins the nomination?   You have not been paying attention then who exactly it is who the right-wing has singled out for sharp ridicule, mockery, disdain.  Edwards has quickly become the right-wing's whipping boy, and to claim that his personna would not rile them up and get the right-wing excited to vote against the Democratic candidate is to ignore what has been happening over the last 4 months.   He should be proud to be disdained so deeply by the right-wing, but that also means that they have come up with good reasons to rally their faithful to vote against someone instead of just for Giuliani or Thompson.  

by georgep 2007-07-09 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Part of that though, I think, is the GOP fears a white southern male, more than they do a woman, even if her name is Clinton (and if it wasn't she would not be the front runner today), or a young black male who has one of the more dynamic personalities in politics over the last 50 years.  The CW of the beltway says that Edwards is the most dangerous in the GE, so the wingnuts attack as they figure there attacks against Hillary and Obama are easy (She's a Clinton and Obama's experience).  

Now I think the beltway is dead wrong on this one and their CW is fucked; we all know the CW of the beltway Dems has sure been off since the 90's.  Personally, I still feel there are at least 5 current Dems who can win the GE... THe big 3, plus Dodd and Richardson, and Gore obviously if he enters.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-09 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

If you ventured out to freeper land, they were having a field day after Edwards announced his 'poverty tour'.

Fair or not, Edwards is thoroughly ridiculed by national media. There's no way he can recover either in primaries or in general.

by areyouready 2007-07-09 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Edwards needs to show himself a strong leader but has been mired for many months in controversies fair or not that show the opposite. The poverty tour would be a good thing at the right time and the right place but it does nothing that I can see to help his campaign and gives his critics such as the extreme right another huge opening to talk about the 3 H's haircuts, houses, and hedge funds again which are part of why he has been sinking in the polls.

by robliberal 2007-07-09 07:06AM | 0 recs
Well, if Edwards is ridiculed by the media,

he gets my vote.  They would prefer a Republican and they will fight like hell to make sure the Democratic nominee is as close to that as triangulation makes feasible.  Edwards scares the crap out of them.  Democrats are beginning to fight back; it's no time to pull a Chamberlain.

by lobo charlie 2007-07-09 07:11AM | 0 recs
Why Freepers love Hillary

This article in the New York Observer about Free Republic banning Giuliani supporters says they want Hillary to win because the believe it's the only way they can return to "the glory days" when Free Republic, Rush, and all their ilk reined supreme.

one popular theory holds that the Free Republic is secretly hoping for another Clinton presidency that would send its Alexa ratings soaring back to levels it hasn't experienced since its halcyon days of the Clinton impeachment, when a since-soured relationship with blog pioneer Matt Drudge and overwhelming anti-Clinton sentiment in Republican ranks helped make Free Republic one of the hottest Web sites in the nation. It hasn't recovered that luster since the Bush administration took over.

"It's not a conspiracy theory, it's an observation," said one blogger, who describes himself as a half-hearted Mitt Romney supporter. "They've still got a brand name that means something, but they're not what they were in terms of real-world impact. A Hillary presidency would get them there."

http://www.observer.com/2007/free-republ ic-purge-conservative-web-site-bans-giul iani-supporters?page=1


by William Domingo 2007-07-09 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Anti-Hillary parrot:

"she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak she's unelectable bwak"

Plus, for your post, add in "she hurts downticket races."  

Your bullshit propaganda is sickening.

by jgarcia 2007-07-09 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Edwards is close to falling behind in the one state that is keeping him alive.  He is certainly well behind in the other early primary states (Florida, South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire) and nationally he polls at 12%.   There is some time left for him, but he allowed himself to be defined poorly in the media to the "other half," which has led to his "would not vote for" numbers to shoot up from that end of the spectrum.

Basically, his numbers show that he has not connected with Democratic primary voters, while at the same time getting a bad rap with the GOP voters, who become less and less likely to let Edwards preserve a "general election" bonus.  I usually don't put any stock in who the GOP "accepts" or "likes," as I believe the right-wing's disdain should be worn proudly and openly, but here the case was made that Edwards could win over some GOPers (thus the "general election" edge talk) which is becoming increasingly unlikely as they have chosen to make Edwards their enemy du-jour.

Edwards needs to turn these numbers around in a hurry.    

by georgep 2007-07-09 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

You rely way to much on national polls. You are trying to extrapolate national numbers to IA FOR EDWARDS.

I donot know what the next IA poll's will show, they could very well show Obama IN THE LEAD.

My suspicion is they will show a close race between all three top tier candidates with un decided's in the range og 15%.

by BDM 2007-07-09 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

I do no such thing.  I am viewing Iowa state polls to determine that the race has tightened considerably in that state and that polls could well show Clinton in the lead there as well over the coming weeks, judging by the reception the 3-day Iowa trip has gotten in that state.

by georgep 2007-07-09 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

And its a valid theory... frankly the polls could show anything... Obama might get a big bounce from fundraising.... Hillary might get a big bounce from her Iowa tour... Edwards might get a big bounce from something else (sorry Edwards supporters I'm just not up on his more current trips to pick something.)

We won't know until we see the polls taken after July 1...

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-09 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

I agree with you there.  It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out in the polls:  Fundraising, Iowa trip, Libby, Ann Coulter-Elizabeth Edwards flap, etc.   I have seen Desmoinesdem state that Clinton will probably get a bump from the "tour" in Iowa, which coming from her must mean that she is probably doing quite well in that state right now.   :-)

by georgep 2007-07-09 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Of Course she also is quite adament that in the end it will be Obama and Edwards.  But I am sure the tour in Iowa will help Hillary... it sure as hell won't hurt her in any way I can think of.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-09 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

And Edwards has made how big of a dent against Hillary?  The way you talk, he is breathing down her neck 2 points out in second place.  

Iowa is 6 months out... A lot can happen in those 6 months and either Obama or Edwards could benefit... or a whole other X factor.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-09 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Edwards has campaigned in Iowa since 2001. In a few months Clinton, Obama, and now Richardson eliminated his lead. Clinton leads in most of the recent polls and she is just now beginning to start to campaign. The situation in Iowa for Edwards is becoming more and more difficult.

by robliberal 2007-07-09 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Which was kind of my point Rob :-)

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-09 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

all do respect to john edwards he is in nowhereville now.  he is pinning his hopes on winning iowa, but that's slipping at best. if he is struggling in his home state of north carolina now what makes many think how is he going to leapfrog over obama and clinton to the nomination?

by terrondt 2007-07-09 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

So what if Edwards wins Iowa; the narrative has been written:  Edwards is EXPECTED to win Iowa because he has lived there so long and most his eggs reside there.  Unless he wins Iowa by a huge #, metinks his "win" will be discounted.

by pamelabrown 2007-07-09 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

At this point the Edwards strategy relies completely on an Iowa win unless he can pull off something completely unexpected.

The realclearpolitics.com poll averages place him just 0.6% ahead of Clinton and 8% ahead of Obama. Polltster.com (which includes Gore) has Edwards ahead of Hillary by 4% and ahead of Obama by 10.7%.

Now factor in the money advantage Obama and Hillary have and those poll numbers are likely to change for the worse for Edwards over time. Intrade.com prediction market has Hillary, Obama and Edwards at 35, 30 and 25, respectively, to win the Iowa race.

links: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus -208.html
http://www.pollster.com/AIATopDems.png

Basically who will win Iowa is still a complete toss up, but Edwards is certainly not a clear favorite anymore, and even if he were to win there it may not be enough.

by End game 2007-07-09 07:22AM | 0 recs
"Beloved" Clinton years?

I'm not sure that most Democratic primary years loved the Clinton years. Certainly most progressives didn't love NAFTA, welfare reform, continuing income inequality, the failure of health care reform, the SOTU speeches that highlighted school uniforms but didn't even mention poverty, the expanded federal death penalty, and a general selling out of progressive principles. That's why Hillary herself has distanced herself from some of Bill's policies, especially on trade.

While Obama's inexperience on the national stage may be a disadvatange, I don't think running against Clinton is nearly as complicated as you claim.

by david mizner 2007-07-09 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: "Beloved" Clinton years?

You are right.  While the Clinton years seemed great at the time, they do not look as rosy now.  Granted, they are still better than the Smirk years.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-07-09 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: "Beloved" Clinton years?

See I see the opposite, I think people who aren't into politics look back and compare the hell that is the Bush years and our worst President to the good times in the CLinton years... similiar to how the wingnuts like to look at the 50's and say it was all leave it to Beaver.  

During the clinton years, we loved the economy, were embarassed by the scandals but united that the impeachment was horseshit and part of the country was fatigued which may or may not have hurt Gore, depending on who you ask (I think it hurt him, but I also think Clinton campaigning for him would have helped)

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-09 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: "Beloved" Clinton years?

I am not sure most Democrats DO NOT love Clinton years. I understand far leftists do not though.

by areyouready 2007-07-09 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: "Beloved" Clinton years?

Well, when you compare them to the Bush years, The Clinton years were a golden age.... then again an anal rash seems like a good thing next to the Bush years.  

At this point, a lot of people have glossed over the bad and just remember the good outside of a few major things... Many have done the same thing with Reagan, choosing to forget his horrendous domestic policies and traitorous actions in the Iran-Contra scandal.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-09 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: "Beloved" Clinton years?

Please don't compare the Reagan years to the Clinton years.  Bill Clinton has a 93% favorability rating with Democrats, and a lot of that does not have to do with just the presidency, but also the way he has been a leader for the party after.   His foundation is "doing" instead of just talking about stuff, in a big way.  He is there when Democrats need a boost, is BY FAR the biggest fundraising draw for any Democratic candidate, anywhere.  Without both the Clinton's fundraising ability we would probably not even have a majority in Congress today.  

There was very little "bad" during the Clinton years for Democrats that has now been "glossed over."  If there would have been, he would have dropped below a certain popularity level amongst Democrats during his presidency, but he never did.  He was always extremely popular with Democrats, nothing "bad" has been forgotten or glossed over.   Even the Lewinsky witchhunt never hurt him amongst Democrats, quite the opposite.   It hurt the GOP instead.  

by georgep 2007-07-09 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: "Beloved" Clinton years?

Read closer George, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.  

I'm NOT comparing Reagan's administration to Clinton's adminstration.  I WAS COMPARING, that as time goes by people ignore the bad and only remember the good, leaving a distorted view of their record. Many Americans view the Reagan years as a golden age of America, forgetting about his disasterous social and domestic policies and the rampant corruption within his administration, the worst since Grant and Harding.

What he is doing now is irrelevant to the discussion.  Why are you even bringing it up? Its like saying Carter's administration was a staunch success based on his dynamic work he has done after office.  Carter is the top President outside of office, but had a bad time in the White House.  For the record, I list Bill Clinton as #2 on that last over the last 50 years.  I'm not sayign Bill is a bad guy, I'm saying that while overall his Presidency is positive, there were some negatives as well.

There was bad in the Clinton years. Your popularity argument is irrelevant to the discussion.  We lost Congress on Clinton's watch... bad.  We went into Rowanda... bad.  We went into the Serbia... bad.  There were several scandals...Whitewater, Lewinski (which was embarassing and would have caused more damage if the GOP hadn't foolishly tried impeachment), Travelgate... bad.  The pardons at the end of his term... bad.  The PR nightmare from the Healthcare plan, which hurt us badly in 1994... bad.  SO there was bad... they don't outweigh the good at all; I'll take a scandal anyday of the week if means several years of thriving economy and low unemployment.  With the exception of the Lewinski affair, most of the bad is pretty much glossed over by a lot of people... just as the Reagan corruption and poor domestic policies are glossed over by those that rank him as a ToP 10 president of all time.  

I think Clinton was a much better president than Reagan, who was much better than W is (who is the worst of all time.) But he did have some negative moments in his administration.  You can be a fan of Bill's (I am) and Hillary (I like Hillary, she is IMHO, not a great choice as our nominee but that is just opinion) and still admit that he was not a perfect President.

You need to really read closer.  Not once does it compare the men.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-09 01:31PM | 0 recs
"Beloved" Clinton years? yep

The quickest way for any Democratic candidate to destroy their chances would be to attack the Clinton years. Bill Clinton consistently has a 90%+ approval rating among Democrats, there is no way that would be a winning strategy.

Obama is re-running Clinton's '92 campaign, so it would make even less sense for him.

by souvarine 2007-07-09 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: "Beloved" Clinton years? yep

That is the dilemma that Obama and Edwards have. The smears and attacks that have been done against Clinton so far have only made her much stronger.

by robliberal 2007-07-09 07:09AM | 0 recs
Exactly, and Obama will not directly attack

Bill.  Instead he will distinguish himself by using Bill's own playbook:  it's time to embrace the future.  Remember the campaign song "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow"?

Obama owns this song; love Bill, but it's time to pass the torch.

by pamelabrown 2007-07-09 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: "Beloved" Clinton years?

Well, since he maintained job approval ratings in the mid to high 60's through out his presidency, I'd say your wrong.  Further, income inequality declined under Clinton only to rise sharply through the Bush years.  Clinton spent most of his presidency undoing alot of the worst of the Reagan years.  NAFTA would have happened no matter who was president, however it failed mostly because the jobs that were supposed to go to Mexico went to China and India, and because concessions were not made for Americans vulnerable to job loss due to NAFTA.  It is true that our tade policies are unfair, but the next step is to make them more fair not isolate ourselves.  I liked the Clinton years.  Hell, I loved them compared to the Bush year.  No one wants to go back in time, but some of the bedrock principles of the Clinton era should be restored.

by bookgrl 2007-07-09 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: "Beloved" Clinton years?

As a progressive who has issues with many of Biull Clinton's policies and decisions, I still recall him and his presidency fondly and let's face it, the progressive bloc of the Democratic primary electorate is pretty solidly against Hillary yet there she is at the top of polls, both national and (most) early states, and rising.

by Todd Beeton 2007-07-09 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Excellent analysis, Todd.

I agree that Democratic voters want redemption for the stolen election, and what better candidate than Clinton, who many see as the "partner" in a presidency that would have easily won re-election, had it not been for term limits.  

People like the fighting spirit that Hillary Clinton has shown to express disdain with the Bushes and Cheneys of the world.  In a way they sense the strong disdain that Clinton has for these people, who, in her mind, stole the election to begin with from us.   Who does not remember Bill Clinton's fighting, defiant words during election season on his appearance on Chris Wallace's show about the 9/11 question.  His strong words rallyed the Democratic party as a whole, which right after became a lot more combative with the right-wing themselves, shed their tentative posture after seeing Bill Clinton passionate and partisan, and, most importantly, going right after the GOP's jugular.   This is more of the same thing.  It actually helps Hillary Clinton to be lumped in with Bill Clinton in the right-wing's critique's of the "Clinton years," because the vast majority of Democrats remember them fondly and would like to return to those years soon, preferrably yesterday.

by georgep 2007-07-09 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

If one wanted a redemption Presidency, wouldn't they want to go with the guy who got screwed, rather than the wife of the former President?

Although I agree that Bill would have beat W like a drum in 2000.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-09 07:35AM | 0 recs
Change

This is why Obama's 'change' slogan itself is very flawed and empty, and I don't believe it will resonate with voters anymore.

In 2006, we had a 'change' election, has anything changed in Washington?

In 2000, George W. Bush ran a 'change' election touting being an 'uniter' and 'outsider'. Pretty much the same appeal of Obama.

When voters settle down thinking about these slogans, the conclusion they will have is that 'Yes, we want change, change to competence'.
That's exactly why Hillary will prevail in the end.

by areyouready 2007-07-09 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning
I think the more attacks that are made against both Bill and Hillary Clinton from the far left and far right are actually helping her campaign. Whether people agreed with every policy issue during the Clinton years it was "a time when Washington worked" and people remember that. With the disaster that Bush created voters want someone who is qualified, intelligent, and is competent enough to start the recovery for this country.
Numerous polls show that experience and strong leadership is an important issue for voters and that is the area where Obama cannot close the gap. Edwards is seen somewhat more favorably than Obama in that regard but his campaign has become more and more of a longshot.
by robliberal 2007-07-09 06:56AM | 0 recs
... huh?

1. Gore's impact on the race is a matter of opinion. His support base is split between low- and high-information Democrats, and there's no way to predict which group would grow by how much after a hypothetical Gore entry. PsiFighter apparently thinks that he will rob HRC of a lot of low-information voters. That's an opinion, and a fairly well argued one, but not a fact.

Low-information voters ultimately bend to high-information voters. They just take much, much longer to do so, and they do so very unpredictably (before even taking into account concurrent fluctuations among high-info voters).

2. The Clinton pardons were an impressive low point in that presidency, right behind all the china the Clintons carted out of the White House.

Marc. Rich. Oil for food, Saddam Hussein, and so on. People haven't forgotten about all of that. to the extent that they have forgotten, they will be well reminded of it in due time.

3. Obama has been getting bogus flak for every news cycle in recent memory. I would expect a significant shift in the polling average conducted after his fundraising came out.

4. Polls equal present support. Donations and donors are future support. Future support matters, and on that score Obama is cleaning Hillary's clock. Your constant announcements of Hillary's inevitability are as premature as they are oddly self-serving.

by jforshaw 2007-07-09 07:10AM | 0 recs
BS

You accuse the Clintons of stealing china from the White House?  That is low and sleazy.   Is your name ElLusbo or InsaHANNITY?

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-09 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: BS

Actually, I remember some of those stories as well... and the staffers taking the W keys off the keyboards which was funny as hell.

I believe there was a chair or some other furniture the MSM (not just wing nut Hannity or Limbaugh) reported them taking.  They thought it was a personal gift and not a WH gift.  I believe they gave it back though if I remember correctly.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/t rashingthewhitehouse.htm

This talks about the "damage" to the WH when they left.  The GAO says its par for the course... the bushies claim theres more than the GAO reported.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-09 07:42AM | 0 recs
You may also recall

That all the wild claims being made by the loons on the right led to an audit that proved the charges ... myths really ... were BS.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-09 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: You may also recall

Um yeah, I kind of said that and the link I provided said it too.  They DID take a chair and some other stuff, but claim it was a misunderstanding (which in honesty, my cynical self never believed, but I wasn't mad about it... they tried, it didn't work and they gave it back... no harm, no foul) and as for the bigger charges the GAO refutes them.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-09 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: BS

jforshaw was about 12 when Clinton left office, as you can see from this post he is one of those "low information" voters who not only gets most of his news from Rush Limbaugh but actually believes it!

He is a soft Obama supporter, until Rush takes Obama seriously enough to move from racist denigration to racist smears.

by souvarine 2007-07-09 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Todd, I think you are wrong. I don't think Hillary had a good week last week at all.  Not nearly as well as they had hoped.  The Libby pardon knocked them off thier game.  A lot of the press was luke warm and the discussions of the Clinon pardons and Clinton lies under oath were unpleasant reminders of what may come in the 2008 campaign.  

I actually think Hillary is starting to run into some trouble.  The predictions market tanked on Friday which means that investors/gamblers are selling their Clinton stock.  Many pundits and journalists seem to have bought into the Obama campaign argument that polls are largely irrelevant at this point and more an indication of name recognition.  That his donor base and fundraising prowess is substantial and more enough to win. There seems to be growing appreciation for Obama the candidate in the chattering class.

I don't know if Bush did it on purpose but I think it hurt Hillary to have Libby pardoned last week.  I think it pointed out that Bill is a double edged sword that will cut both ways: he can help her but he can also hurt her.
 

by aiko 2007-07-09 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

interesting re prediction markets. and I agree with you that Bill can be a double edged sword but I really do think he does more good than harm, especially with Dem primary voters. in retrospect, most people agree that Al should have embraced Bill in 2000, and that putting him at arm's length was a mistake. 7 years hence Bill is even more popular.

by Todd Beeton 2007-07-09 09:21AM | 0 recs
Hillary is offering the best combo right now

She is the candidate that is offering the best combo of talking about issues that are important to Democrats, sticking it to Bush and the Republicans, and looking the most Presidential.  She is the most complete package.

In my opinion all of the candidates are doing a decent job on the issues.  But Obama and Edwards have some weaknesses.

Obama isn't doing a good enough job of taking it to Bush and the Republicans.  Primary voters need a little red meat.  I think Obama's talk of bi-partisanship rings a bit hollow with many.

Edwards isn't looking very Presidential thanks to things both outside and within his control.  The hair cut thing is an unwelcome distraction and the war of words with Coulter was the wrong thing to do.

As for experience I do think Obama and Edwards are at a disadvantage.  Because Hillary was in the White House and in the national eye for all those years I think a lot of voters see her as having a lot of experience, even though her Senate experience isn't miles apart from Obama or Edwards.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-09 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is offering the best combo right now

Forget this obsession with "taking it to Bush" -- both Bush and the thugs have been thoroughly discredited just by their own little selves. Beating up on them now is utterly superfluous.

We need to move on, unite the country, and get behind a positive agenda around a core set of principles.  

Satisfying as it might be to some to beat up on this irrelevant dead carcass of the rethug party, it does not serve our, or the country's, goals for the future. There was a time when that was necessary (between 2001 and 2006), so that we could move the country to the place we were a long time ago, which it already has.  The country is now ripe for the next phase -- a post-nightmare recovery.  We need to strike when the country (and the planet!) is hot -- go positive, present a compelling vision for where we want to go and how, and keep the thugs marginalized and impotent.

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-09 07:30AM | 0 recs
DraftChickenHawks?

We need to move on, unite the country, and get behind a positive agenda around a core set of principles.

As exemplified in your signature, right? :-)

by markjay 2007-07-09 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: DraftChickenHawks?

Touche :-)  

Seriously, a point well taken.  I took that name when in the depths of my own despair and anger and disbelief what was happening. Then took it again for consistency across boards.

But you are right and I should change it...

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-09 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: DraftChickenHawks?

But you know, the country was pretty united in liking the former President Clinton.  He had high 60's approval ratings through out his presidency, 73% upon impeachment, and left office with record high approval for a departing president.  It was always that 30% who still approve of Bush that hated Clinton.  It was their people who controlled Congress and divided the country not Bill Clinton, so I don't see how Obama is going to unite the country anymore than any othe good Democrat including Hillary.  That same contigent will hate him just as they hated Bill.

by bookgrl 2007-07-09 10:12AM | 0 recs
Its rings hollow

Your second paragrapgh simply isn't going to carry a lot of weight.  Politics is partisan by its very nature.  Primaries even more so.

Look at Howard Dean and how he surged in '03.  The CW at the time said that you couldn't attack Bush because he was so darn popular and we were at war.  Howard Dean went right after Bush when nobody else would.  In the end he lost on the electability questions.  Voters went with a long time Senator and veteran.  But the point is Dean climbed into contention because he threw out the red meat.

Now if you can marry the red meat with a grasp of the issues, and perceived electability you have a winner.   Hillary is doing the best job of that right now.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-09 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Its rings hollow

There is a time and a place for righteous and right (as in correct) partisanship -- that was in 2004.  Then, I was all for completely stomping on the thugs in all partisan glory, mainly to bring out the differences between their bankrupt philosophy (and therefore, their "policies") and our, more benign and egalitarian outlook on life.  Because, then, the public was not aware of the depth of the depravity on the right; now they are; and they are in deep mourning for what they believed and what they let happen.  Now is not the time to stomp all over that grief.  Now is the time to bind the wounds, soothe, recover from the collective shame and move on...

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-09 08:33AM | 0 recs
I think you are way off base

"...they are in deep mourning for what they believed and what they let happen."

I simply don't think that is true.

Deep mourning?  C'mon.  If you want your guy to win you better wake up (more importantly he better wake up) and realize that politics is politics and it hasn't changed and it won't change all that much any time soon.  This is still a red / blue / purple election.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-09 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Its rings hollow

The nation and the world stand on the edge of a cliff about to implode. Bush, his people and his policies have turned us all into suicide bombers ready to blow ourselves up just to get even. We need a healing in this land and forgiveness for those who have been misled, so that together we can fix what has been broken. 51% is not enough. If it is that close, they will steal it again at the ballot box. People on the right were fooled and they are mad about it. Some are leaving the Republican party going independent. Some are looking for ways to redefine conservatism and leaving Bush and his ilk out of that definition. IF we avoid smacking them down and insulting them while they are seeking a new answer, they may want to be a part of what we are trying to do. That's what the Obama campaign is all about, it's not even about him, it is about us picking up the pieces of our country and putting it back together, only this time trying hard not to leave anybody out.

by jazzyjay 2007-07-09 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Its rings hollow

"Bush, his people and his policies have turned us all into suicide bombers ready to blow ourselves up just to get even.

You are speaking for yourself perhaps, certainly not me. I agree that Bush has been a disgrace as a President but he doesn't control my life. I sure as hell ain't strapping on a suicide belt because of him or anybody else. This over dramatization of the situation from Obama supporters is one of the reasons I don't support the guy. Suicide bombers, I mean get frickin real. Take a few deep breaths and come back to reality. And, oh yeah, put down the tnt.

by DoIT 2007-07-09 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Its rings hollow

Metaphor, just a figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, guess I have to be careful with this crowd. Here is the literal meaning. Many democrats are so angry that they will do self destructive things. Okay....

by jazzyjay 2007-07-09 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Its rings hollow

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that some Democrats are starting to do self destructive things, like Cindy Sheehan threatening Nancy Pelosi. Or some of us beating up on candidates from our own party.

I also think that we all need to take a few deep breaths and get our head clear. It is one thing to be mad as hell at Bush. Pretty much anything this guy does will drive a sane person nuts. Just imagine what he does to us crazies! My point though is that we cannot allow ourselves to be controlled by this pompous Dictator Wannabe and his whole band of liars and thieves. We just need to think clearly, come up with a rational and winning plan, then unite and change the course of the political movement.

by DoIT 2007-07-09 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Its rings hollow

Agree, see I resisted saying something not nice about your misinterpretation of what I said and because I resisted doing that you were then willing to dialog, then we could find common ground. I connect completely with what you just said, and I think we as progressives can build bridges in the same way with others who may think they could never stand in agreement with us. That is what I think Obama is trying to do.

by jazzyjay 2007-07-09 01:15PM | 0 recs
This is an important idea

You should work it up as a diary.

by horizonr 2007-07-09 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: This is an important idea

I think so too (that this is an important idea) and have been hawking it everywhere I can, in comments.  

Diary would (should!) be a good idea.  Trouble is, it will not reach the eyes that it needs to reach, if I put it in a separate diary and people sense a "moveon" theme.  They are still bitter (no one can blame them for that, it is galling to me too, to let the criminals off the hook, in a sense) and do not want to let go of that anger, not even in the service of their own cause...

I am hoping comments will sneak up on people and soon will begin tugging them in the right direction...

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-09 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: This is an important idea

I'll help out where I can.

by horizonr 2007-07-09 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is offering the best combo right now
They did not draw the crowds they thought they nwould in IA. in central IA they thought they would draw 7,000 but estimates by the police put it at 3-5000. Obama drew far more when he was in central IA a couple of weeks ago.
The future markets show the race tightening to za couple of points.
by BDM 2007-07-09 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is offering the best combo right now

LOL.  We have video evidence to contradict your statement from BOTH the Clinton AND the Obama visits.  

by georgep 2007-07-09 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Hillary is not winning anything -- polls at this stage of the game do not mean anything; and, in as much as you can draw anything concrete from them at all, polls consistently show that low-information voters prefer her and high-information voters Barack.  She is high in the polls right now for one simple reason -- a superficial name-id associated with a vaguely perceived leadership quality.  When more voters cotton on to what that leadership consists of (a rather brittle front on an inherently diligent-yet-vision-less core), I am almost certain that there will be a sharp pivot away from her.  If it does not, we are all in for more trouble than we realize.  I will vote for her over the rethug in the general (as I will for any other Democrat on the ballot), but I will pray hard after I do, that she is not as belligerent as she wants to sound to get there -- and I am an atheist :-(

To the extent that her "strength" in the polls troubles me, it is only when her poll numbers seem to jump a bit after she makes all those inane hawkish noises in debates -- it scares me that there are idiot "hawks" (more like vultures, really, living off the deaths of other people's children soldiers sent to unnecessary wars started by insecure people propping up their images by rattling the saber in the 21st century, no less) in the grassroots of the Democratic party, too...

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-09 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Boy that chicken hawk paragraph is priceless. I too was terrified at her gleeful expression when she spoke of dropping bombs in Africa. Just what we need, another nut job in the White House trying to prove they are really tough...

by jazzyjay 2007-07-09 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

She may not turn out to be as bad as another insecure chickenhawk in the WH, but her insistent bellicose rhetoric on this score does give one one mighty scare, coupled with that utterly irresponsible vote to authorize this lunacy in the first place.

Until that war vote, I used to tell my circle of friends that if she runs, I would quit my job and join her campaign, because she would be a history-making candidate and we desperately need some serious glass-shattering right about now...  :-(

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-09 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

You keep bringin up the "beloved" clinton years as if all Americans evenly benefited from the clinton administration.  What was so beloved about the clinton years for African Americans and Latinos? in case you forget clinton signed NAFTA, Three strikes you're out (responsible for sending more blacks and latinos to jail than any other 8 year presidential period inclunding the current administration), dont ask dont tell, unneeded sanctions on Iraq responsible for the deaths of more than a million children, and that's without mentioning the fact that clinton bombed iraq to take the attention to his sex-with-an-intern scandal, his money dealings with Archer Daniels Midland  (google it just to get a reminder), or the fact that Bill clinton turned U.S Intelligence into a cash cow, WACO, the whole Elian Gonzalez thing, Kosovo, Rwanda, the Colombian civil war.

Should I go on?

It truly scapes me that you're praising Hillary when all she's doing is running on the C- legacy of her husband.  Hillary on her own, has no clothes just like George Bush.

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-07-09 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

"...and that's without mentioning the fact that clinton bombed iraq to take the attention to his sex-with-an-intern scandal..."

With this single comment you totally discredit any other point you might have made. Neocon talking points are disgraceful. And the fact that they are lies is beyond dispute. Take your hate to Fox News or some other place where lies and innuendo are considered truth.

by DoIT 2007-07-09 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Why did Bill clinton bomb Iraq? Were the sanctions on Iraq kept under a tight rap by clinto justifiable? Why did clinton have a regime change policy on Iraq? Why did he do nothing on Rwanda?

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-07-09 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

What right-wing bull.   A shame to see it on MyDD.  

by georgep 2007-07-09 08:00AM | 0 recs
Thanks Todd

Ya know, there are other folks in the race.  Folks doing better than Obama in all Iowa polls and better than Obama in several SC and NH polls.

by philgoblue 2007-07-09 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

I've always wondered about the meaning of Hillary's lead.  She's usually got a plurality somewhere in the thirties or low forties.  Can anyone explain to me why, since most state's primaries award delegates proportionally, that this won't result in an open convention where Hillary has 35-40% of the votes and other candidates have 60-65%?  Seems less than "inevitable" and sounds like the nomination might actually be decided at the convention.

Or am I missing something?

by TomSkidmore 2007-07-09 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: allocation of delegates

First, most states have threshholds of something like 15 percent of the vote that a candidate must get to be awarded delegates.   So eliminate the percentage of the vote for all the candidates getting 1-14.9 percent of the vote.

Second, while most delegates are then apportioned on the basis of the vote per Congressional district--here in California I think it can range from something like 3-5 or 4-6 depending upon the number of delegates alloted the state and the Democratic performance of the CD in recent elections--there are "bonus" delegates (not to be confused with the officeholders and party officials who are super delegates) awarded to the candidate who wins statewide.

Someone may come along and refine this picture but that's the general overview.

by InigoMontoya 2007-07-09 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

You're missing something.

First, most delegates are not distributed proportionally.  If you get 35-40% of the vote, you might get 45-55% of the delegates in a state.  Second, there is a snowball effect.  Whoever picks up the plurality of votes in early primaries tends to expand their lead as time goes on.  Third, there are the unelected superdelegates -- more than 15% of the total delegates -- who, again, tend to vote with the leader.

If Hillary wins the first few states with 35% of the vote, she would have the nomination sewn up.

by markjay 2007-07-09 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Thank you.  This is very useful and explains why there is so much more counting of electoral votes than convention delegates.  Obviously the purpose behind such weighting is to give more power to insiders and to reach consensus more quickly on a candidate.  

The question then is, would it be better to have a more democratic process, such as a national primary or real proportional representation ?

by TomSkidmore 2007-07-09 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Ah, I think everyone is missing the major point working FOR Hillary: being female.

And women will vote for her, in droves. No matter what the politics, she's viable and will tip the scales when a majority of women ( of whom a majority of voters ARE women ) will vote her in.

by johnnyr 2007-07-09 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

She has the trifecta going for her, internals that should make here even more of a favorate than most polls suggest:

1. Women like her, a lot.  Women are more likely to vote than men, by almost 10% points in primaries/caucuses (55% to 45%)

2. By far her strongest constituency is the older age group (55 years of age and older.)  They also happen to be the most reliable primary and caucus voters, to the tune of over 50% participation in primaries and 60% participation in caucuses.

3. From a partisan point of view, she gets her strongest share within the "partisan Democrats" group.  That group is also the most likely to show up at the polls, more so than Independents, plus in many primaries and caucuses they are barred from even voting.  

by georgep 2007-07-09 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Winning what? I didn't know she'd won a primary already.

by bruh21 2007-07-09 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

According to all of the Clinton posters; the contest is over we might as well all pack up our marbles and go home and crown her the nominee and the next president. We don't need to go through the nonsense and have voters actually vote.

by BDM 2007-07-09 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

I agree. I have decided to take a different approach here, and just accept that this will now be a part of this blog. Basically means looking more discerningly at which diaries I read.

by bruh21 2007-07-09 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

the front page is changing too.  I get more interesting info on obama on politico than i do on mydd or kos

this is cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn3AF6hX5 CA

by aiko 2007-07-09 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

As someone that does support Hillary Clinton I take issue with your characterization. While it is true that there are some posters that take your point of view, most of us realize that this is a very long campaign and the end cannot be predicted. And even if it could I believe strongly that candidates should earn our votes.

What I see more often than not are people that either are not supporting Hillary and use every excuse to demean and criticize her to supposedly beef up support for their candidate or people that are really neocon lurkers that just want to stir up the shit.

I have no problem talking about the issues of each candidate. It is the healthy process of democracy. But tearing down other Democratic candidates for the sole purpose of making your candidate look better does little to inform and enhance democracy. And in my opinion using Neocon talking points to do so is completely off limits. I honestly don't know whether the people that spew these talking points actually believe them or are just using them because they are convenient hits, so easy to throw. But whatever the reason, we really need to put an end to them and decide as a party that we won't put up with that type of characterization of any of our candidates. Not from the Neocons and definitely not from our side. Because I will guarantee you one thing: The Neocons might be salivating about having Hillary Clinton as our nominee. And some of them like Bill Kristol may actually think they will win the debate. But Hillary has thought about all of this long and hard and she will not back down or concede a single issue to them. If some of you haven't seen her fight I invite you to investigate her history. And regardless of who our nominee is the Neocons are going to lie, distort and discredit their positions. And they will use the comments made by people of the same party as ammunition against our nominee. So please, support your candidate to the fullest. And if you criticize another candidate do so on principle without resort to the heinous attack strategies of our collective opposition.

by DoIT 2007-07-09 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Okay- so lets talk issues. Write up a diary about HRC's positions on issues, and I will recommended it.

by bruh21 2007-07-09 08:48AM | 0 recs
Hillary is formidable

and despite NAFTA, Bill moved the progressive ball forward.

Yet, I am just so exhausted by the wars, partisan wars, that I WANT TO TURN THE PAGE.  Being right is not enough, as an American our problems are not addressed--forget resolutions!

by pamelabrown 2007-07-09 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

a question for you concerning Hillary and rightwing talking points.

1-Hillary's taking money from the Big pharma companies as shown at last in MM's Sicko.

2-Hillary's taking big time money from AIPAC (could this be the reason for her position on Iran?).

3-Hillary supports and even voted to go to war with Iraq (despite the fact that she didnt read the NIE telling us that there was no reason for going to war).

4-Hillary supports the building of permanent bases in the country of Iraq, and the last i checked she wanted to leave at least 50K soldiers out there to fight "alqueada."

5-Hillary's an ally of the Military Industrial Complex.

6-Hillary has had an unrelevant senate career.

7-Hillary wanted to curtail 1st ammendment rights with her support of banning flag desecration.

Are all of these rightwing talking points?

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-07-09 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

I agree with you 100%- Beautifully crafted post- Let's hope if more of us speak out we can raise the level of conversation on these progressive blogs.  The misplaced anger is frustrating and shameful-  we are on the same team and we need to pull together-It's just too important- thank you.

by Menemshasunset 2007-07-09 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

That is some fantasy you have come up with.  Nobody states that the race is over.  This race will be fought one vote and one voter at a time.  Nobody is coasting, nobody is claiming that the race is "in the bag."   Sure, I believe Clinton to be the favorite, but all it takes is one huge blunder for her to lose traction.   Nobody takes anything for granted, although I have seen Obama and Edwards supporters make such claims that surely look like they believe that there is no way their candidate can lose against "her," an attitude which probably largely underestimates the depth, strength and solidity of her support.  

by georgep 2007-07-09 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

not only is her lead in polls persistent but it's growing. of course all caveats about how early it is still are pertinent and still anything can happen, but looking at right now according to the metrics we have at our disposal, ie polls, I think it's worth looking at why she's is ahead.

by Todd Beeton 2007-07-09 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

I think Bill being associated with Hillary's 2008 bid is hurting Bill, Hillary and the Democrats in general. Bill was able to distance himself from the scandals and disasters of his presidency by becoming a statesman...doing good in the world and being less partisan. Take note of his friendship with the senior Bush, his work on world-wide proverty initiatives, his non-partisan approach and even support of GW Bush. Putting him front and center in Hillary's campaign makes many people focus on his negative and unpopular initiatives, the dynasty thing, and how divided we are and how nasty things have become in politics.

Being associated with Bill's presidency hurts HRC in the General Election because she can't run on the war (she vote for it/he agreed with it) she can't run on health care (after her attempt at Hillary care even she is afraid to offer anything substantial about it) she can't run on changing the partisan politics (together they generate large amounts of it), campaign finance reform (no credibility) trade (her husband signed that disasterous NAFTA) justice (mandatory sentencing, 3 strikes) honesty in the White House (Bill's perjury)and more. There is almost no important issue that she can take a clear shot at the republicans without ducking intense return fire.

And the above list was generated by someone who was really fond of the Clinton years. Now add to that all the reasons the right has to despise them and you have all the venemous energy the right needs to flood the polls in large number and take down anything with a D after it. We could end up with 3 branches of government in the hands of the Republicans again, with Fred Thompson or Guliani at the top. Now that is a nightmare scenario. When democratic voters wake up and smell that coffee, her numbers will sink like a rock.

Obama has enough juice to make that case.

by jazzyjay 2007-07-09 07:53AM | 0 recs
Another thing about Bill

When Bill Clinton gave the "Send Me" speech at the 2004 convention, I got chills.  But it didn't help Kerry too much, because it just showed how short he fell of Clinton's abilities as a campaigner.  I still remember that speech, Gore's self-effacing one, and Carter's righteous anger.  Was Kerry even at the convention?  I can't remember him saying a thing.

Standing up Hillary next to Bill is just going to remind people that she wasn't, in fact, the president in the 90s, and we're not going to get that guy back.  Hillary's been smart so far to not use "I'm Bill Clinton's wife" too hard, because I don't think that's going to  win people over.  We already saw where "I'm George Bush's idiot son" got us.  And at the end of the day, while I'm sure Donovan McNabb's wife knows a heck of a lot about football, if Donovan gets hurt, I'm not going to put Mrs. McNabb in  pads, I'm going to  put in Jeff Garcia.

One of Hillary's biggest negatives, for me, is that if she were Hillary Rodham Jones, she'd at best be representing Illinois in the House, and more likely be a successful lawyer no one's ever heard of.  There's no way she'd be the Senator from a state she'd never lived in, much less the Presidential frontrunner in 2007, if she hadn't spent the past 15 years in the national spotlight.  She needs to convince us that Hillary Rodham Jones would make just as good a president as Hillary Rodham Clinton, and leaning too heavily on Bill isn't going to do that.

by schroeder 2007-07-09 10:24AM | 0 recs
What makes you think Hillary is winning?

Is it the national polls? Because if so, it might be helpful to remember that at this time in 2003, Lieberman was ahead in the national polls.

by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona 2007-07-09 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: What makes you think Hillary is winning?

Historical analogies don't matter because well they don't matter.

by bruh21 2007-07-09 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: What makes you think Hillary is winning?

Not true.  Kerry was the Democratic frontrunner well into July.  He lost his lead in late July/August to Dean, but in the end pulled out a victory anyway.  

by georgep 2007-07-09 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: What makes you think Hillary is winning?

''Kerry was the Democratic frontrunner well into July.''

Maybe in terms of CW but not in terms of actual national polling.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem2.ht m

Lieberman was ahead more often that not until the Dean surge of late Summer but never with anything like the support we have seen with Hillary Clinton this year.

by conspiracy 2007-07-11 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning
No one is "winning"....If the Convention was held today..what candidate would have more than 50% of the delegates?
When a candidate has over 50% of the delegates..then and only then will he/she be winning..
by DenverD 2007-07-09 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Hillary's Winning

Everyone is just so focused on these polls,and it's like well the polls say she's winning so we all have to vote for her like were some type of mindless zombies.I don't knowe about you folks but I have a mind of my own and I won't be voting for Hillary.So you folks keep being zombies and drinking the kool-aide.Boy Jim Jones would have love you people.

by shorty c 2007-07-23 02:33PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads