Hillary's Support Grows Day By Day (Across the Board)

As many of you know, Gen. Wes Clark posted an article on Huffington Post yesterday, in which he expressed support for Hillary's position on Iran.  Additionally, Ambassador Joe Wilson (remember him) posted a similar article on Talk Left expressing the same thoughts.  

I'm glad to see them coming out in support of Hillary's stand on this issue, and in looking at other things on the net - and the recent polls - I'm finding Hillary's got more and more support out there.

More...

I had the pleasure of meeting a Huffington Post regular at the CGI conference last week - I was very impressed with Dave Johnson and I wish I'd discovered his writing on Huffington Post earlier.   He really seems to know his stuff.  HillaryHub posted a link to something he and a colleague posted on Oct. 3rd and I think this points to a few of the reasons Hillary's been so successful in her campaign thus far.  It also points to how hard Hillary's been working, and with every hand she shakes and with every voter who actually LOOKS AT HER RECORD, she wins folks over one at a time.

HILLARY CLINTON: Mission Accomplished

For the past three decades, the right wing has employed a powerful strategy of "$ell and $mear." They insist on being the gatekeepers to public opinion and have developed a powerful machine that tells us who to like - and who to hate.

snip

This is Senator Clinton's primary challenge. Because since this strategy has been deployed, no one, not one single politician, has been in the eye of the machine longer than Senator Clinton. For almost 15 years, Americans have been bombarded with smears and negative commentary about her. Virtually every aspect of her life, personal and political, from her hairstyle to private decisions she made within her marriage, has been criticized.

snip

She and her staff rolled up their sleeves and went to work. One voter at a time, one appearance at a time, one county, one district, one state. And what happened in New York State was a pretty good precursor to what is happening nationally.

snip

Grudgingly, we hear from senior people in other campaigns that they are impressed at how hard she works, how good her team is, how they keep working all day, every day.

They're right. She's top in the polls and in the fundraising race not because of some unforeseeable chain of events; she's there because she understood the reality of her situation and she has outworked everyone else.

If she is our nominee, it will because of two core factors.

She didn't attempt to smash the negative perception as much as she shattered it softly and slowly -- one person at a time.

She, and her team, have worked hard, and smart.

I can't add much to this write-up except to say that here, on the ground in Maryland it's almost as if it's October 2008 - not 2007.  We all see how hard Hillary and her staff are working to win over hearts & minds and that attitude is contagious.  We wear our buttons proudly every time we leave the house and if someone asks us about Hillary we can't wait to talk her up with our neighbors, friends & family (even strangers!).  We hold house parties and go to parades & local festivals to sign up other volunteers, sell buttons & t-shirts and pass out stickers & literature.  And we write on blogs like this because we're passionate about our candidate.

Clark & Wilson are convinced - we're convinced - and others will be too.

As many of you know, Hillary won re-election to her Senate seat by winning over 67% of the voters in New York last year.  She would have won without the margin of victory in the city and took 36 of the 40 counties won by Bush in 2004.  A lot of republicans and independents voted for her and that's a testament to how hard she worked to get her message out and meet people one on one.

This strategy continues to work to her advantage today.  ABC News just posted an article in which they examine her dramatic gains in support among male voters.

HILLARY CLNITON'S MAN APPEAL

An ABC/Washington Post poll released Oct. 3 shows that 48 percent of Democratic men -- a rise from 29 percent at the beginning of September -- support her presidential bid.

snip

But her surge in popularity among Democratic men raises the question: Why now?

Mark Halperin, ABC News political analyst and editor-at-large for Time Magazine, suggests that her gender doesn't matter.

"Men shopping for a Democratic presidential candidate are looking for someone tough, someone smart and someone who can get the White House back from the Republicans," Halperin said. "Hillary Clinton right now looks the strongest on those fronts. The fact that she is a she does not seem to matter much for many men."

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile says Clinton "keeps looking more and more presidential."

snip

"I think she's the best choice," said Buddy Milstead, a 70-year-old retired independent voter from Rustin, La.

(emphasis mine - sorry for the liberal use of the word "snip" there fellas!)

Check out the linked videos off the top-right of this article - especially her interview re "evil & bad men" - priceless!  They've also got a link to her speech before the Carnegie Institution for Science yesterday.

Lastly, I think it's important to mention a new Gallup Poll that was just released today.  

Gallup Poll

PRINCETON, NJ -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, who currently leads the Democratic race for the 2008 presidential nomination by more than 20 percentage points in a USA Today/Gallup poll, is also chosen by Democrats (including Democratic-leaning independents) as the candidate best able to handle many national issues. In fact, according to the latest Gallup Panel survey, Democrats perceive Clinton as the best prepared of the top three Democratic contenders to handle 13 of 17 different challenges that could face the next president.

snip

                                           Clinton    Obama   Edwards
    %    %    %
Being commander-in-chief of the military      38    28    28
Energy and the environment                    43      23       26
Healing political divisions in the country    34    37    23
Taxes                                            48    25    20
The economy                                  60    16    19
Immigration                                    39    31    18
Reforming the way the government in Washington works    38    37    18
Healthcare                                    65    14    17
Terrorism                                    49    26    17
The situation in Iraq                            47    31    17
Crime                                            43    31    17
Inspiring Americans                            34    44    17
Education                                    58    21    16
Relations with other countries                    54    28    14
Gay marriage                                    51    19    13
Abortion                                    61    14    11
Race relations                                   30    58    8
Average                                            47    28    18

These numbers aren't flukes or outliers folks.  She's consistently performed strong in poll after poll after poll and her numbers are climbing with each new poll that's released.  Now I know at the end of the day the only polls that count are the ones held on primary & election day, but as a Hillary supporter, I'm encouraged by how strong a campaign she's been running.

Hillary's gaining ground on all levels - I'm even seeing an increase in support for her here on this site since I started writing about her campaign in June.  And I'm convinced that it's due in large part to people cutting through the hype - looking at her record and her proposals - and maybe even meeting her at her many campaign appearances or seeing how well she performs in the debates.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - take a look at her voting record, who's endorsing her (Clark, Wilson, Unions and people like us), and what she's proposing... because the more you know about Hillary Clinton - the more impressed your going to be.

You may even find yourself writing diaries like this one some day ;o)



Display:


Tips For a Strong Democratic Candidate (2.00 / 3)

Have at it folks - just remember who the real bad guys are out there ;o)


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:39:09 PM EST

The Lobbyists (none / 0)


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

Does "sorry" wipe blood from the hands?

How does that work?

Does one have to say "I am truely sorry" or what?


by dpANDREWS on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

One should leave public office


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:41:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

...and then seek a higher one!


by frankies on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

I don't need her to say she's sorry--I'd just like her to admit she made a mistake. After 7 years of a President who can't admit mistakes the last thing we need is another President who can't admit mistakes.

3 little words--"I was wrong"--that's all she's got to say.


by Mystylplx on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (2.00 / 1)

She's said that about a hundred times. "Knowing what I know now, I obviously wouldn't have cast that vote."

Have you ever listened to her? Or do you just rely on DailyKOS hit diaries?


by hwc on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

I've heard her say that. What I want to hear her say is, "Even knowing what I knew then I was wrong." Just what does she know now that she didn't know then other than the lack of WMD's? It was a stupid, naive and irresponsible vote born out of political cowardice.


by Mystylplx on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:00:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (2.00 / 1)

Personally, I like the fact that she takes responsibility for her vote. She stands up and says she cast the vote instead of trying to wipe it away.

But, if you want to vote for a candidate who was in a position to vote and who didn't vote in favor of the AUMF, you have a choice in this election: Dennis Kucinich.


by hwc on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

You can't "take responsibility" for a mistake you won't admit to having made. That's basic--the first step to taking responsibility is to admit your error, and she won't do that.


by Mystylplx on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (2.00 / 1)

She cast the vote with the caveat which was spelled out in the AUMF that exhaustive diplomatic efforts were to occur before any military action, that inspectors were to be let back in to report on the existence of WMDs, that the UN would be heavily involved in the process.   Bush did not stick to his promises.   Now, some of you make it easy on yourselves by stating:  "Well, if she trusted Bush's word, then she is incompetent.  Either way, she is not a good choice, bla bla bla."  That is making it yourself a bit too easy.  Colin Powell was probably THE most respected political/miltary figure in the US at the time, a man whose word was trusted on both sides of the aisles and across the country.  When he sold his "goods" at the UN that was probably the pivotal moment in that ordeal, as the promises Bush had made to the Democratic delegation (which included co-sponsor John Edwards) had become credible because of Powell's professional reputation and honesty underlying it.    


by georgep on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:38:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

George, there is o such thing about a caveat vote. You either vote Yea, Nay, Abstain or miss the vote. All the other crap you say doesn't mean a damned thing.


by DoIT on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:12:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

no such thing

Doh!


by DoIT on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:13:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

Thanks for telling me that I am "saying crap."  I have always given you respect, why do you feel that you have to lash out at every Clinton supporter now?   I find that a bit strange.  I don't mind at all that you changed your mind again, but come on.  


by georgep on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:05:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

Well, just like her new candidate Edwards, one flip-flop after another.  Flip-flopper attracts flip-floppers. LOL.

The most amusing thing is for those Edwards supporters to claim he has the most grassroots support. If that's the case based on those silly kos polls, why can't this guy raise money from small donors from internet?

Clinton beats him, Obama beats him, Ron Paul beats him, even freaking Thompson beats him on online donations.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:31:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

George, all the other stuff you did say was crap. It  doesn't matter what a politician says it matters what they do. And Hillary voted yea. Caveats don't count when it comes to legislation. You know this is true. And I meant no personal disrespect by my comment. But I have to say that while I do respect you I am disappointed that you don't at least try to reign in areyouready from time to time. It would bump up my respect for you immensely. I think that others here would agree with me as well.


by DoIT on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:40:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the fact that she believed that george bush... (2.00 / 1)

would use exhaustive diplomatic efforts is the reason that people criticize her for a lack of judgment here.  NOBODY else in the country believed that bush would exhaust all other means before invading.  everybody else understood that bush would invade when he felt like it -- that's what his doctrine of unilateral action meant.

her failure to take such a cowboy at his word (that he would invade unilaterally, if necessary) is really disconcerting -- especially when she was really quite alone in doing so.  and she's shown no willingness to reconsider her lack of judgment here.  this is not just about her vote giving bush the authority to invade, but her failure to understand what her vote meant.

it's not like bush is the only cowboy in the world.  it's full of them.  you have to hope that hillary surrounds herself with much smarter people than she had in 2002 if she's to be president.  she's demonstrated some serious flaws in her political judgment since she's been on the stage...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:19:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

She doesn' take responsability - she blames bush to trick the crowd and distract that she - and 30 other Dems - are also at fault


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

I'll stick to my belief that although people might admire you for saying you are wrong, they won't vote on you for President because of it- she should never apologize and her answer on it seems legitimate to me and what she basically said in her floor speech when she made the vote.  Al Gore took a big hit when he started one of the later debates apologizing for making up part of his answer in the debate before.  It took me a few days to get over that, thinking maybe he was not Presidential material.


by reasonwarrior on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, (none / 0)

I'd say that what she knows now and didn't know then is how unpopular the war would become. She didn't realize how unpopular the war would become, and if she had understood that she would have voted against it. All she's doing is admitting to a political mistake.


by Mystylplx on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What they really want (2.00 / 1)

What Obama and Edwards supporters want is a sound clip that will doom her in the general ... something the Republicans can play over and over again to paint her as weak.

She is staying strong ... that is smart.


by dpANDREWS on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:15:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (none / 0)

Bingo. We have Bingo.

Edwards and Obama seem incapapble of visualizing a general election campaign against the Republicans...or positioning for a victory.


by hwc on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well, the general rule of thumb is... (none / 0)

never look past the next election.  which i assume is the reason why the clintons were so angry that obama got in the race...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:23:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (2.00 / 1)

Nope they want a candidate who has demonstrated good judgement


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (none / 0)

Yeah, that's Clinton. She has seen it all and knows the in and outs of politics. She will be ready the moment she is inaugurated.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (none / 0)

She knows the ins and outs of politics, but her judgement leaves quite a bit to be desired.


by Mystylplx on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (none / 0)

I am perfectly satisfied with Clinton's judgment, and so is 40% to 50% of the Democratic electorate who support her nomination.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:44:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (2.00 / 1)

and 40 years ago 60% of the Democratic Electorate was against the Civil Rights movement.  7 years ago 80% supported this war... Do you always go with the crowd?


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (none / 0)

Your comment is laughable. People need to stop pulling comments out of a hat to attack others.

I'm my own man and I support Senator Clinton because of her strong positions on social liberalism, because she is strong on national security and a has both the experience and proper judgment to lead this country. She is tough, smart and ready to lead. Anyone with an eye and an ear can she that by her talent she surrounds herself with and the exceptional management of her campaign.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:48:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (2.00 / 1)

George Bush runs great campaigns - did you support him too?


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:27:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (none / 0)

EXAAAAACTLY!

Hillary's already running her general election game plan and they're still trying to figure out how to toss the freakin' coin to start the game.

No way she's going to apologize OR say she was wrong.  No way in hell.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:24:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (2.00 / 1)

Also, there really is no need to say sorry.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:28:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (2.00 / 1)

You said it very well. There is no way she is going to admit that she was wrong. She is incapable of admitting that she made a mistake and is partially responsible for the mess Bush led us into. To me that is a sign of weakness, dishonesty and corruption.


by DoIT on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:31:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Disagree (none / 0)

A sign of weakness would be to cave in to the constant barage of demands for an apology, thereby handing the GOP a golden nugget to use against her in the general election.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Disagree (none / 0)

"A sign of weakness would be to cave in to the constant barage of demands for an apology."

Actually, that would be a sign of stupidity.

John Edwards is sucking up to the netroots, trying to 'play' them in the primary by 'apologizing' (or 'admitting his mistake', whatever).  He's trying to hit a triple bank longshot into the convention.

If Edwards did get the nomination, he'd dump the netroots faster than you can say Herzliya.

I say twelve minutes into his convention address, Edwards would blow off MoveOn.  Anyone for ten minutes?

If men were angels, they wouldn't need a government.
If they were governed by angels, they wouldn't need a Constitution.


by Canaan on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:43:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What they really want (none / 0)

No way she's going to apologize OR say she was wrong.  No way in hell.

This has become obvious. Our current President is exactly the same way.


by Mystylplx on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong. (none / 0)

What i want is to know that she is capable of learning from her mistakes, and the first step to doing that is admitting she made a mistake.


by Mystylplx on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The first step is ... (none / 0)

Winning the White House.


by dpANDREWS on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:59:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The first step is ... (none / 0)

No. That's the last step. Whatever Democratic nominee that emerges will win the White House. The question is who is the best person for the job?


by Mystylplx on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong. (none / 0)

She learned from her mistakes on Hillarycare and has publicly admitted and corrected them.

She just knows better than to capitulate to the netroots.  She knows the netroots are lying when they say they would stop hating her if she 'apologizes'.

If you knew then what you know now, would you have voted for Nader in 2000?


by Canaan on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:52:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong. (none / 0)

You weren't paying attention. She doesn't have to apologize, just admit she was wrong. And she certainly hasn't corrected her mistakes nor admited to them on Hillarycare. She just makes excuses and shifts the blame.


by Mystylplx on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 03:20:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

those clips already exist... (2.00 / 1)

the gop has extensive video of her saying this and that, in anticipation of her run.  there has never been a candidate as thoroughly oppo'ed as hillary will be.  we'll see plenty of flip-flop commercials from the gop, but this time it won't be metaphorical, it will be with her own words from her own mouth...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:23:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

See, the problem with (2.00 / 1)

her whole, "If I knew then what I know now" thing is it's an excuse. She's implying that her vote was the right thing to do given the information she had at the time. What she's really saying is she didn't make a mistake at all, she just had bad information.

That's not admitting a mistake--that's excusing away a mistake.


by Mystylplx on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:28:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, the problem with (none / 0)

Very well put and absolutely true!


by DoIT on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:32:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, the problem with (2.00 / 1)

Ya'll sort out the history amongst yourselves. The 2008 election is about the future.


by hwc on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:39:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, the problem with (none / 0)

Outstanind poing HWC.

Hillary's focusing on the future and THAT'S why she's doing so well in her campaign right now.

She understands a fundamental rule that the others seem to have missed.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, the problem with (none / 0)

You have the same penmanship of areyouready.


by DoIT on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, the problem with (none / 0)

BALONEY.  Karen (Alegre) is NOT AT ALL like Areyouready.  What is going on with you today?  Geez man.  We are GETTING that you suddenly now hate Clinton and her supporters with a passion.  It is weird in a way, but your deal/prerogative.  Just don't start lashing out at everybody/everything.  Post your thoughts, let others post theirs, no need for all this "are all you hillary supporters stupid?" type stuff.  You KNOW damn well how ridiculous some of the attacks aimed at you were when you were a Hillary supporter on here.  


by georgep on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:42:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, the problem with (none / 0)

I don't hate anyone George, except maybe republicans with a frickin passion. I take exception to the label Hillary haters. I have supported the woman so how can I now hate her? I disagree with her on the war and on Iran immensely. And I will do everything in my power to oppose her getting the nomination. But I don't hate her and I would appreciate you and the rest not placing that label upon me.

What I said about Alegre is that what she posted with the misspelled words looked exactly like something areyouready would post. A sloppy careless post. I don't know Karen. But I do know she told someone to fuck off a few days ago and then had that post deleted so no evidence of it exists any longer. And she calls herself the leader of the Hillary bloggers. So if the leader acts that way how do you expect the rest of us to treat her supporters?


by DoIT on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, the problem with (2.00 / 1)

If only it were so easy to make it all just go away.  Sigh.  I must admit she's done a pretty good job of erasing her tracks.  Among historians it is called revisionism and you see plenty of it, especially in political history.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, the problem with (none / 0)

The best test of future behavior is past behavior.


by Mystylplx on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:20:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What up with Edwards? (none / 0)

That sounds more like a prevarication than an admission to me.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about Biden? What about Dodd? (2.00 / 1)

What about leaders like Reid and Shumer or Hoyer and Murtha?

What about all the Democrats who voted for it?

Or do you just direct your irrational hate at those Democrats that stand between the nomination and your candidate?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro ll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con gress=107&session=2&vote=00237


by dpANDREWS on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Biden? What about Dodd? (none / 0)

ALL of them.


by Mystylplx on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great, we'd have a Republican Congress (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, then we could all pee and moan and go protest something.  Yippy.


by dpANDREWS on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great, we'd have a Republican Congress (2.00 / 2)

Your opinion is that we should NOT question the motives and actions of our elected representatives or we will end up with a republican majority. If that ain't Rovian I don't know what the hell is. Do you Hillary supporters ever even listen to what you are saying?


by DoIT on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Biden? What about Dodd? (1.50 / 2)

THEY WERE ALL WRONG! Shout intended because apparently many Hillary supporters have a hearing problem. At a minimum a listening one.


by DoIT on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Biden? What about Dodd? (none / 0)

We hear FINE!

We just happen to disagree with your basic point.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:29:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Biden? What about Dodd? (none / 0)

They were all wrong.

That's what I've been saying all along.  It didn't stop me from campaigning for Kerry/Edwards in 2004.  And it didn't stop Daily Kos either.  I object to people buying Edwards' phoney apology, giving him a pass on his war vote while attacking Clinton for hers.

Edwards would probably be doing better if his ass was getting burned for his war vote.  Giving him a pass makes him look like a joke to anyone not drinking the anti-Hillary Kool-Aid.


by Canaan on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Biden? What about Dodd? (none / 0)

Hoping not to have to vote for any of them either, frankly.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 3)

The thing is that just like the ABC/WaPo poll this latest Gallup shows that Clinton has a dramatic  ~40% lead over her competitors when it comes to health care.  She already has a huge lead on education, the economy, etc.  Also, on terrorism and Iraq.  

I just think if you look at the internals of these polls with those dramatic competetive advantages within the most important issues Democrats care about, you have your answer why she is ahead in the polls.  That is not likely to change, these leads are way too large for that to happen.  


by georgep on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:58:17 PM EST

Speaking of good political writing (2.00 / 2)

While on the subject of good political writing, Britain's The Economist has the best political writing I've seen this year. Here's a sample from their major piece this week:

http://www.economist.com/world/displayst ory.cfm?story_id=9904609

Mrs Clinton is not only the front-runner. She is well on the way to becoming a prohibitive front-runner.

This is an extraordinary situation, for all sorts of reasons. The race ought to be wide open: it is the first time that neither party has an incumbent, in the form of a vice-president, since 1928. The rise of the netroots has transferred political power from the Washington establishment to smaller donors. And America is in an anti-establishment mood: the Democratic Congress has even lower approval ratings, at about 27%, than George Bush. Yet Mrs Clinton has all the advantages of an incumbent, from a brand name to an established political machine, without many of the disadvantages.

And this too is odd, since she is one of the most hated figures in American politics. During the 1990s she embodied everything that conservatives hate about female professionals: a bossy harridan who disparaged stay-at-home mothers, tried to reorganise the health-care system that makes up one-seventh of the American economy, and stayed with her tom-catting husband to further her political ambitions. Conservative conferences regularly feature loo-paper with Hillary's face on it and Hillary trolls to throw balls at. CafePress, a web retailer, is selling more than 100,000 anti-Hillary items, including a "Hillary is the Devil" beer stein.

But Hillary-hatred is by no means confined to the right. David Geffen, a Hollywood mogul, gave voice to a widespread feeling on the left when he complained about the Clintons' relationship with truth. "Everybody in politics lies," he told the New York Times. "But they do it with such ease, it's troubling." Mrs Clinton has some of the highest negatives of any politician in the business.

And yet here she is, with her husband, looking likely to break all sorts of records.

And some great short hits:

She has also devoted a lot of effort to improving her party's infrastructure. She helped John Podesta, her husband's former chief of staff, to found a think-tank, the Centre for American Progress, which is a ready source of ideas and talent. She also supported the American Democracy Institute, which is run by veteran Clinton allies, and Media Matters for America, a media watchdog group, which was founded by David Brock, a former Clinton-hater turned Clintonite. All this helped to ensure that, for all the energy unleashed by the netroots and Al Gore, the Washington Democratic establishment has remained a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton family.

The final piece of the Clinton puzzle is her formidable campaign machine. Mrs Clinton has assembled the best collection of pollsters, image-crafters, fund-raisers and hatchet-men in the business; and so far she has managed them successfully.

And the presidential field is full of people who are "different" in some way, from John McCain, the oldest man to run for president, to Rudy Giuliani, the most divorced man to run for president, to Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon, to Dennis Kucinich, who is, well, Dennis Kucinich.

...Americans want a tough president, not a psychopath: some of her Republican rivals remain worryingly bellicose.


by hwc on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:00:38 PM EST

that's last week's economist... (none / 0)


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's last week's economist... (2.00 / 1)

So, sue me.


by hwc on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:11:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not my point... (none / 0)

i was just trying to understand why you were calling it "this week's economist" when i already had this week's (the most recent) economist in my hand.  not that accuracy matters for much here...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:26:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speaking of good political writing (none / 0)

Wowzer - this really is a terrific find HWC - thanks for posting it here!

I've gotta bookmark that article.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speaking of good political writing (2.00 / 1)

All of The Economist's political writing is terrific. Really witty stuff and they come much closer, IMO, to capturing the dynamics of the race than the clucking pundits in Washington...most of whom are so superficial.


by hwc on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Agree (none / 0)

Though probably more aligned with the WSJ crowd in Britain than otherwise the reporting in The Economist is generally pretty frank.  I especially like this bit from their recent article Ready to run the movie again? (emphasis added):

What does the possibility of a Clinton restoration mean for America? Everything depends on whether Mrs Clinton can translate her air of competence into reality. The Clinton White House, be it remembered, lurched from crisis to crisis, some of them of Mrs Clinton's creation. It is also worth remembering that Mr Bush sold himself as an MBA president surrounded by political veterans. But three things are already clear--one positive and two negative.

The positive is that Mrs Clinton would break America's highest glass ceiling. Women have made their mark in almost every area of American life, from the Senate (16 currently) to the House (74, including the speaker) to the governor's office (nine). Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice have both been secretary of state. In that respect, a woman president would undoubtedly be a good thing for the country.

But there is a downside: dynasty. If Mrs Clinton wins the White House in 2008, members of the Bush and Clinton families will have been president for 24 years on the trot. Over 100m Americans have never known anybody but a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. If Mrs Clinton wins re-election, that 24 years will swell to 28.

Americans are remarkably insouciant about this development. They should not be. It suggests that American political life is in the hands of a small group of insiders who are organised around semi-royal families. And it divides America into "players", who control political life, and "observers", who simply comment on it. The dynastification of American politics is happening at a time when economic inequalities are growing, and the "haves" are proving increasingly successful at transmitting their privileges to their children.

The other negative side is that it freezes American political life. One of the virtues of the American political system is that it is supposed to produce shake-ups whenever a new president takes over. Mrs Clinton will bring back the same cast of characters that everybody wearied of in the 1990s, from slick money-raisers like Terry McAuliffe to professional conservative-haters like Sidney Blumenthal.

Back in 1993 Jacob Weisberg, writing in the New Republic, accused the Clinton team of "Clincest"--being a "tight, hermetic and incestuous clique" who went to the same universities and hung out at the same Democratic gabfests. Mrs Clinton's election will not only perpetuate "Clincest" for another four or eight years; it will also add another dollop of ageing baby-boomer self-satisfaction. During a campaign speech earlier this year Mr Clinton remarked that he once told Hillary, when they were both students at Yale, that "I have met all the most gifted people in our generation and you're the best." This sort of attitude will be difficult to live with.

The Clintonites have already brought back some of their old bad habits. Mrs Clinton had to return $850,000 from a fund-raiser called Norman Hsu who turned out to be a fugitive. But even more dispiriting will be the continuing polarisation of American politics. Mrs Clinton may have damped down Hillary-hatred for a while. But it is sure to revive if she starts appointing Supreme Court justices. And Mrs Clinton is still surrounded by the same fanatically loyal and combative staff that she had in the 1990s. America will be stuck not just in the same tired culture war, but also in the same culture war fought by the same characters. The potential for further alienation from politics, particularly after the Bush years, will be huge.

Mrs Clinton is clearly a formidable candidate for the presidency. She has the most powerful name in the business now that the Bush brand is tarnished. She has a smoothly working political machine. She has a wealth of experience in both the legislative and the executive branch. And she exudes competence. All told, she looks likely to translate this into both the Democratic nomination and a victory in November 2008. But whether a Clinton restoration will be good for America is a much more difficult question.  

The Economist 4 Oct 07


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:32:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree (none / 0)

The first year of the Bill Clinton administration is why I place so much weight on White House experience this time around. Newbies always stumble around trying to adjust to the speed of the pro game, to get an effective staff in place, and to get up and running. Hillary has been there, done that and learned from the mistakes that all rookies make. She'll be able to hit the ground running from day one.


by hwc on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:51:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree (none / 0)

I don't think the author was were referring to the first year of the Clinton administration, do you?  But I did find the writing terrific, really witty stuff, much closer to capturing the dynamics of the race than superficiality of the Washington pundits.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree (none / 0)

Clinton started to get his sea legs after the first year. When he started shaking up his staff, bringing in some Washington veterans like David Gergan in communications and Leon Panetta to be Chief of Staff.

It's the same mistake that every rookie President makes...trying to bring in all the people from back home, who promptly get rolled by the Washington media and Capitol Hill. Carter made the same mistakes. They all do.

An example of this kind of naivete is one of the Democratic candidates who is promising to get Congress to vote to cut off their own health care. Yeah, right. Walk into the White House with that attitude and they'll eat you alive.


by hwc on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree (none / 0)

I get it, you are referring to the 'Clincest' paragraph and comments made in 1993.  No doubt there is merit in your point, but it hardly speaks to the broader analysis of the article.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 11:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes, but bill clinton's first year failures are,,, (none / 0)

atypical.  i can't think of another person who assumed the presidency who didn't have a plan for his first few months in office (you have to strike while the iron is hot) or was as ineffective in implementing it as clinton.  to assume that every other candidate who wins the white house will be as inept as bill clinton was in his first year is folly.  that's like assuming that every first pick in the nfl draft will be like ryan leaf...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's Support Grows Day By Day (2.00 / 2)

In politics, 60-90 days is a long time.

But, I do believe she is on her way to the nomination. You can feel rank & file democrats are now consolidating with institutional democrats.

Her campaign reminds me of the GOP primary in 1999. Ironically, her strength reminds me of a man named Gov. George W. Bush in 1999.

The only difference is she is even much stronger
than Bush was in 1999.

If Hillary is the nominee, she will be a strong favorite to win the general election.

This is Not John Kerry of 04 or Gore of 00 in terms of concern with personality, political skills, being likeable to your average american.

The more people hear & see her, the stronger she gets.

An angry right wing base will be all noise.
But that does not translate to votes.

Just like a very angry democratic base in 2004 was not enough to defeat Bush.

Hillary Clinton is getting stronger every day!!!!

AMEN!

And if she is the nominee, she will be very hard to beat.

Let's put it this way, she is much more electable than Kerry or even Gore was in 2000. ( and Gore really won)

With Clinton, you can sleep at night knowing that she can handle any attacks on her by the right wing. She is one tough, skilled- lady.


by labanman on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:16:28 PM EST

Re: Hillary's Support Grows Day By Day (none / 0)

But, I do believe she is on her way to the nomination. You can feel rank & file democrats are now consolidating with institutional democrats.

That's the frightening possibility for Obama and Edwards...and why they are going nuts with their attacks. This week at Edwards rallies and on TV, campaign spokesmen are saying, "The Clintons screwed us!". Pretty desperate stuff.

At a certain point, Democrats are going to mentally move beyond the primary battle and start engaging the thoughts of a very strong frontrunner taking it to the Republicans. If (when) that happens, Obama and Edwards will be toast.


by hwc on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:44:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's Support Grows Day By Day (2.00 / 1)

I think we are very close to that point.  

Clinton beats the short off the other candidates on the 10 issues Democrats care the most about:

Iraq
Health-Care
Education

etc.

Those are opinions on which candidate is best on the "issues."  "Issues" opinions take a very long time to change around, years.  It is very unlikely that either Obama or Edwards would at any point gain the upperhand on "health care," "education," "Abortion," "the economy," etc.  


by georgep on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:50:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's Support Grows Day By Day (none / 0)

Also, don't forget that December is traditionally a "frozen polls" month when it comes to nomination (as people concentrate on family, holiday preparations, etc.)  

End of November is when this thing is going to be where it will likely stay until Iowa/NH.  


by georgep on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's Support Grows Day By Day (none / 0)

He's also asking folks to ignore the polls AND his fundraising numbers.  AP had an article on that this morning.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's Support Grows Day By Day (Across the (2.00 / 1)

The "evil, bad men" clip cracks me up.  So funny.  And a real genuine moment.

No wonder my wife likes her so much. :(


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:20:39 PM EST

Re: Hillary's Support Grows Day By Day (Across the (none / 0)

I know!  That pause of hers was priceless LOL!


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:09:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice dairy. (2.00 / 1)

Great actually.

Thank you.


by dpANDREWS on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:30:49 PM EST

Re: Nice dairy. (none / 0)

My pleasure!


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's Support Grows Day By Day (none / 0)

The next month should be exciting for Hillary supporters- I expect the endorsements to start pouring in, especially after her great fundraising numbers.  Democrats will want to start consolidating behind someone to prepare for the General Election and she is now the logical choice for that.  The polls should show her getting stronger and stronger and I can't wait to see the new ones(I know some people don't believe in polls, but I do, especially when my candidate has broken 50 percent in the national ones)


by reasonwarrior on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:34:34 PM EST

Re: Hillary's Support Grows (none / 0)

I think if she makes it thru October to Mid-Nov. with her lead intact, she will more than likely secure the nomination.  I think the whole family first-politics never starts in the week leading up to Thanksgiving.  You're either the host of a big dinner or you making travel plans to go to the big dinner.  This then slides into the Holidays, which eats up much of December and the beginning of Jan.  The news will be dominated by holiday stories about where to get really good fruitcake and the house with a million lights.  Edwards has been coming on strong with the attacks this week, I'm definitely waiting see who (Hill herself or a surrogate) hits back on her behalf.  He really has a small window to get noticed, so I understand why he is starting the attacks now.


by Kingstongirl on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:30:37 AM EST

Re: Hillary's Support Grows (none / 0)

I think Clinton will ignore Edwards' attacks.

She basically cut the legs out from under his attacks with her new ad in Iowa and New Hampshire.


by hwc on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:25:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's Support Grows (none / 0)

Ignoring the other candidates would be the smart thing to do.

I'm trying to follow her lead on the blogs too!


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's Support Grows (none / 0)

Amen.  Not taking the nom for granted ...

but I'm spending more time on the conservative sites these days.  The strategy is to tag her as far left, 'socialist', and ironically, link her to MoveOn.  I call her a 'Super Atomic Security Mom'.

This whole right-left extremist anti-Hillary cartel might work to her advantage.  It's the extremists on both wings who hate Hillary -- she has the vital dynamic center.

What's a good strategy for male independents/blue collar male dems--to get past any latent sexism?  (1) HRC is smart and tough, and (2) these men have daughters they love.  "She could grow up to be President."


by Canaan on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.