Pity poor Chris and all his anti-Clinton company.
When an occasional poll indicates upward movement for either Senator Obama or former Senator Edwards, it must be accurate. When longstanding, many would believe far more reliable polling outfits, such as America's grand-daddy pollster Gallup indicates substantial leads for Senator Clinton, such polling must be inflated.
I am ever reminded of some regional GOP activists and their skewered logic. When President Bush 43 was enjoying high ratings in the aftermath of 9/11, that polling was said to reflect true public sentiment, and must have been accurate.
When for almost all of his second term, President Bush 43 found himself mired in middle thirtieth to high twentieth polling percentiles, such polling could not have been conducted properly. The grand-daddy pollster Gallup proclaimed the GWB slide, and has consistently maintained those low ratings.
The unreality of bloggers is astonishing. When Senator Obama reveals amazing fundraising prowess, he is said to be not merely formidable but prohibitive. After all, more of his revenue could be utilized for the primaries, could it not?
When Senator Clinton raised an astonishing, indeed unprecedented sum, not much prior to Senator Obama's release of his monetary figures--her sums were regarded by both the Netrooters and by the ever anti-Clinton punditocracy with suspicion, and thus needed to be parsed as to the nature of her actual cash-on-hand.
It is inconceivable to many Netrooters that there is actual enthusiasm for her.
It is inconceivable both to many Netrooters and established anti-Clinton forces that she could have a most substantial lead based on many citizens believing she is simply the most supremely qualified.
Why, they ask, and here of course they point to accuracy in their cherry-picked polling results, would citizens want to elect Senator Clinton when SOME polls suggest she cannot be elected?
Of course, they disregard those polls--including recent Rasmussen polls--which prove that she certainly can be elected, whether that is against Giuliani or McCain.
Senator Clinton has been a political force and a progressive voice at least since her days as the star graduate at Wellesley in 1969.
She has had nearly four decades in the social arena, and some three decades in the political arena, and at least two decades surviving the thrust of reactionaries which would have made politicians less steadfast have gone into hiding.
She is married to the politician many regard as the most gifted of the past half century--another true political survivor, in every sense of that phrase.
I believe that Senator Clinton will do far better than even her two-to-one advantage in the current Gallup poll might suggest.
Although for Chris and his anti-Clinton minions it is inconceivable, it just might be that against a fine orator but very green Senator Obama and a most principled but not as savvy former Senator Edwards, Senator Clinton is viewed as supremely experienced and supremely focussed.
I believe she will be the nation's first female President. And she will leave her GOP opposition--whether Giuliani or McCain or Thompson or Romney or whomever--in the political dust.
She's for real--and so are her Gallup numbers.
Nice rant! I only wish it had something constructive to say.
"And she will leave her GOP opposition--whether Giuliani or McCain or Thompson or Romney or whomever--in the political dust."
This is akin to belief in fairytales. Why should Hillary suddenly become embraced by those 50% who would "never consider voting" for her? Her negatives are set in stone and they are not just caused by GOP smears but her very own personality. She does not radiate warmth to say the least.
Sadly, it is purely Netroot fantasy to believe that Senator Clinton is unelectable.
With all her negatives, she now either bests or is in the margin of error of besting any GOP candidate.
And she has been defined, repeatedly, which explains her negatives.
The neophyte Senator Obama, for all his fine oratory, will be easily redfined.
The reality is if he were the candidate in a general election campaign, he would be fortunate to carry his home state of Illinois.
Saner minds in the Democratic primaries will prevail. And indeed are prevailing; thus the Senator Clinton lead.
Former Senator Edwards has exceptional conviction and drive, but with Senator Kerry as the other half of the would-be Democratic presidential team in 2004, neither man could really go the distance. And as Donald Trump presciently noted recently, against President GWB, they ought to have easily gone that distance.
Senator Clinton has the experience and is a very seasoned veteran. She has been biding her time. When she has her turn as the Democratic presidential candidate she will both endure and triumph.
Misters Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Romney are as nothing besides a decade of Ken Starr inquisition and purely political Impeachment.
The reality is that those rival camdidates will whither away before her. She will triumph in spite of Netrooters and those who have long shared their anti-Clinton venom.
Success brings the new reality. Senator Clinton will follow the only successful Democratic presidential candidate of the past quarter century (indeed the only twice popularly elected Democratic candidate of the past forty years)--her husband Bill--to the White House.
She will then demonstrate the reality of how one governs successfully on both a national and international stage.
We will happily turn a page backward to a far better time, rather than turning a page forward in the hopes that a neophyte like Senator Obama can learn while on the job.
The last time that happened, we found ourselves being led by President Bush 43.
And the reality of his presidency was most sobering indeed.
