MyDD :: Markos says Hillary has "Negative Coattails"

Markos says Hillary has "Negative Coattails"

by TarHeel, Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:28:49 PM EST

John Edwards' comment for Democrats to think about the general election is not a new argument.

I could be wrong but at least when people were watching Hillary was not allowed to campaign with Webb at public rallies . (only private no press fundraisers).

Here's no less than Kos discussing a part of this:

And finally, while Hillary should have as good a chance as any Democrat to win the White House, she'll kill us downticket in House and Senate races in the South, some parts of the Midwest, and the Mountain West. None of the other guys would necessarily help us in those races, but they wouldn't hurt either the way Hillary would. We're talking negative coattails here.-- Markos Moulitas

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6 /18/133711/536

It would be interesting if someone could tabulate public rally appearances in 2006 for candidates in states that John Kerry lost.

Tags: Hillary clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 104 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Markos says Hillary (none / 0)

In all fairness he had equally negative things to say about Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:41:30 PM EST

Re: Markos says Hillary (none / 0)

I agree, he blasted them all, but stated if Hillary is the nominee, look for her to have no coattails and he gave the regions. We have to be real here, her unfavorables is over 50% or around that. If she is the nominee, you can forget anyone in swing districts or states, asking her to stump. That is just how it is, and we will have to deal with it. Hopefully there will be NO LOSS, if she is the candidate, but if she it, the worst scenario is loosing one chamber of congress.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:45:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary (none / 0)

Obama's unfavorables are barely behind Clinton at this point and that is without 100% name recognition. Clinton's numbers are almost identiical to Gore and Kerry. Any potential nominee will have those very same numbers by election day.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary (none / 0)

Look, this can be argued, either way. And you know this. Obama is still getting to be known by the public, and his numbers can go either way. But Hillary Clinton is known by the public and her numbers are not going down but up. If you want her to have "coattails", and all politicians do, WORK ON HER NEGATIVES.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:53:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary (none / 0)

She is doing just that. With every debate low-info folks who see her like her more and more. The more debates, the better. She has done a lot to get her positives up and her negatives down. For example, she turned her numbers around by 5% in the latest Quinnipiac poll, is now again in positive territory (44% negatives.) The same negatives, btw, that Obama has in the Rasmussen survey.

We have also seen a lot of good numbers for Clinton in head-to-heads. Quinnipiac's numbers give Clinton the nod against Giuliani by a nice margin. The same is true for the NBC/WSJ poll. She has widened her lead over both Thompson and Romney, as per Rasmussen yesterday.

There are also a ton of state surveys that show something similar (i.e. latest Texas poll.)

Bottom line: Clinton is working on her negatives and has done a lot to turn them around, is very competetive or dominating against all GOP comers. Obama's negatives have gone way up, as has his recent problem in head-to-heads (he dropped against Giuliani by a full 11% to trailing Giuliani by a full 12% in the last Rasmussen survey.) If it is true that "it could go either way," it is also true that it could get worse. The current so-so neg./pos. showing for Obama is something he needs to address and combat, as he needs his positive/negative rating to be extraordinarily positive to combat the experience factor.

by georgep on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary (none / 0)

Oh, I agree for Obama it could get worse, and he is in a grey area right now, the public is still getting to know him. And we will see the benefit, if any for him in the fall. But Clinton, she has to work on those numbers. We can not have a nominee in the upwards of 50%, that is dangerous politics. The debates are not enough for me. Nobody is watching them. What about 2M. That is nothing. She has to turn it on in the fall, when the schedule will be on the major stations, ABC is one I believe. Again, she got to work those negs, that is a drag to me. Because if she can not get them down, she is going to hurt the "coattails", no two ways about it.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:47:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary (none / 0)

The Rasmussen survey you are referencing is quite clearly an outlier. His unfavorables have not been that high in any previous Rasmussen survey or other national survey.

Gallup has his unfavorables at 25%
Quinnipiac has his unfavorables at 21%

I don't have time to find more polls right now, but claiming his unfavorables are at 44% when you scream about how averaging polls is necessary doesn't make much sense does it?

by Obama08 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:20:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary (none / 0)

Wrong. Reducing negatives is difficult. About the only case of leaders suddenly getting lower negatives in recent history is the aftermath of 9/11.

Increase the negatives of your opponents. Winning in places like Montana isn't harder in presidential years isn't harder because the voters dislike our candidates. It's harder because they're voting for presidential candidates. Sure, a lot of them vote for Republicans because they hate liberals, but that's a near unreachable minority. It's politically smarter to remove such individuals from the voting population by destroying their faith in their candidates.

Reducing one's negatives is not a bad thing to do, but killing the positives of your opponents is probably better. And that work is still to be done, but it's something that the blogosphere is uniquely suited for.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:37:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, ask "Rudy, 9/11, Cash Cow Guliani" (none / 0)

He was in the TOILET before 9/11, for real. After 9/11 he became a national fixture and you would never THINK he was in the poll toilet, prior.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:13:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And it can be reversed (none / 0)

Exactly. Bush also showed why Rudy is beatable. Look at Bush's drop in popularity.

Rudy is batshit-insane enough to have his negatives pushed up into the stratosphere. Imagine an ad contrasting Rudy's suggestions in his speeches to the words of the constitution, and the comments of its drafters. Selling him as a would-be despot works. And every Repub candidate has their own weaknesses.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And it can be reversed (3.00 / 0)

Yeah, but unfortunately about 50% of Americans can't detect batshit-insane republicans -- that's how we got Bush remember!

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary (none / 0)

Latest Rasmussen has her favorables higher than her unfaves. And as Obama has more and more name recognition, his negatives are going higher -

Hillary's has been stable in most polls, but are starting to go down.

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary (none / 0)

not the negatives. 52 in Gallup, 49 in Rassmussen. Obama is in a grey area, people have not up their minds on him. We will see his negatives either go up or down after Labor Day.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:13:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh??? (none / 0)

i've not seen anything that had obama's negatives close to the 50s. not even close:

POLL            DATE        NEG.
CBS News/NY Times Poll. May 18-23, 2007    21%
USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 4-6, 2007    24%
NBC News/WSJ Poll. April 20-23, 2007    14%

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh??? (none / 0)

44% will not vote for Obama in the general election. That is without having the name recognition of Clinton but numbers are only a few points behind Clinton. If he gets as much name recognition as Clinton by election day his numbers could in theory be even higher.

While I disagree with the coattail theory for those who want to use it the argument could be made that he also would cause downticket losses since he only is able to poll in the 30s in various states where Clinton and Edwards would be 10 points higher.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/favorables/election_2008 _democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_p residential_election

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:26:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh??? (none / 0)

Yeah, but I am not worried about Obama, he is the new kid on the block. Many have not made their minds up about him. I am worried about Clinton. Now she has crossed over the 50% mark. What is her campaign going to do about this. Since everyone on this site is so "laden" in poll numbers, what is she going to do about this. For me, it means 50% of the population will not vote for you. And at what cost if she does win? Will we loose one of the branches of congress? Loose control, or better yet, not expand it, because she is elected? This puts us back to square one and beggin'. Is it worth it, if she has no coattails? That is the question.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:31:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh??? (none / 0)

The Quinnipiac poll shows her at 47%-44% popularity. Other polls are showing the same thing. That is not "crossing 50.%

The "new kid on the block" can easily get even worse negatives. One dumb comment, one strange interpretation, is all it takes and his already surprisingly weak numbers go further South.

Keep in mind that his support has been shown to be very soft, with a majority actually stating that they only support him "somewhat" rather than "strongly."

by georgep on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but this is still early in the campaign, (none / 0)

George. I spoke w/my mother and she knew NOTHING of this memo crap. Absolutely, nothing, but she did know about the "Obama Girl" video. It means that people are still not paying attention. Look at the debate stats, low, very low. I knew people, who have cable, who did not even know there were debates already. And the next debate is on PBS, wanna guess the nielsen ratings? Again, many have not decided. People will be more in tune in the fall, after Labor Day, and the polls will tighten.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh??? (none / 0)

The same argument should be applied to both candidates for those who want pursue it. If 44% will not vote for Obama that is only slightly different from the numbers for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:45:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh??? (none / 0)

Most of that 44% won't vote for any Democrat. Almost all of them won't vote for any Democrat left of Matheson.

There are only two solutions to this. One is to draft Boren and kiss goodbye to anything resembling dignity or ideals. The other is to ignore the 44%. A presidential campaign cannot convert millions of people, at least not until it gets into office.

You deal with your high negatives. They're inevitable in the political climate. You win by increasing the pool of positive voters, but more importantly by making people hate the other candidate more.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:44:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, he is a blank slate (none / 0)

He is letting people project whatever they want to on him. So people are projecting JFK and Lincoln on to him. It is very easily possible that by the time general elections are over that the Republicans would have projected a Herbert Hoover or Walter Mondale on to him. That is the danger when you are a fresh face and let people project all their aspirations on to you.

by rakk12 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bingo... (none / 0)

people have very strong impressions of hillary. she has very little room to "re-introduce" herself to the country, as she is trying to do now.

the problem with hillary is that she has high negatives now before the republicans start talking about hillarycare and the return to the psychodrama. then you have her votes as a senator, which always gets senator-nominees in trouble. you can expect to see lots of comments about her flip-flops, with the inference that she really doesn't have any core beliefs only intense ambition. hillary is the easiest target because she starts with a high negative base and people already have a bad impression of her (at least in the focus groups i've sat in). it will be very easy to trigger higher negatives with hillary.

down ballot, candidates just have to start protecting themselves now. they have to be prepared to separate themselves from the national ticket and make it stick. lots of historical examples out there, salazar and crist being the best known. let hillary run her campaign, democratic candidates in redder areas are going to have to stay away from her and make that independence well known...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 07:45:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh??? (none / 0)

i still don't know what to do with rasmussen because of his methodology. internet polling may be fine, but i have doubts that he could get a balanced random sample right now. his numbers are out of whack with everyone else's (that i've seen) and it's difficult not to believe that it's his methodology.

as i've repeatedly said, all these numbers right now are a function of name recognition. only hillary has universal name recognition, so it should be expected that she polls better right now nationally. national polls aren't nearly as helpful as state polls, and state polls right now reflect media attention more than voter's decisions.

what campaign's are looking for benchmarks within certain initial conditions. only hillary's polling is can be considered an approximate of where she'll end up...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 07:38:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it's more than that... (3.00 / 1)

democratic candidates will have to actively and visibly distance themselves from her. i say start now. but democrats in more reddish districts can expect to see the morph ad where their candidates face disappears into hillary's. i could see republicans retaking the house with her on the ticket...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:03:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, this is just an opinion, (none / 0)

with no FACT to back it up. Just puttin' it out there.

So, opinion wise, Markos may have a point. I always go back to our races in November, 2006. A prime example, Claire McCaskill, running for the senate seat in Missouri. You would think that Hillary, being a woman would be there. She was not, in fact Barack Obama was there several times, and I believe, Bill Clinton, but not Hillary. Why? Missouri is a swing state, that is why.

So, for Markos, opinion, he may be correct. We, as a party, have to be ready for more partisian politics if she is elected, and if we loose any congressional or senate seats due to her. But the worst scenario is us loosing one chamber of congress.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:42:45 PM EST

In NC (none / 0)

in an open election the Democrat had an intitial 13 point lead but ending up losing.

The strategy? Running negative ads of Erskine Bowles as Clinton's employee in the whitehouse...

(ps. Edwards also campaign for McCaskill in 2006)

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dishonest answer (1.00 / 2)

This is the most dishonest answer I've ever seen. Your boy Edwards could not even win his own state, not even close. And you are blasting Hillary?

Brain pills please.

by lambiel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dishonest answer (none / 0)

He is blasting the name of Clinton. And if you knew the history, it did HAPPEN.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: right... (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 Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:27:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's not actually true (3.00 / 1)

the only poll on election day showed a hypothetical Edwards beating Burrr.

Also, it's a fact that Erskine Bowles had a double digit lead early on, and it's a fact that Burr tied Bowles to his work in the Clinton whitehouse in negative TV ads..

all of that is fact.

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not actually true (none / 0)

True, but Bowles was a particularly shitty candidate.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, this is just an opinion, (none / 0)

That is his opinion and he is quite often very wrong. My opinion is that it will not have any negative effect on down ticket races and could also even help in some if Clinton brings out a lot of women and minority voters who do not always vote.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, this is just an opinion, (none / 0)

I agree with this, but she will do noone any good in the south. Some of the NE swing districts, it will be a battle. In the west, forget it. Unless, as you state, the women and minorities come out huge. But, if we loose ground and not gain with her on the ticket, or a chamber of congress, it won't be sweet. She has got to do something about those negative numbers, she really does.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:54:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, this is just an opinion, (none / 0)

How many marginal districts are there in the south?

I know of none in the Deep South, Florida is culturally different and too horribly gerrymandered for Democrats to have much of a chance (winning control of state government there is a necessity) and in the Upper South we have a few districts in Virginia (mostly in the north, which is less culturally southern) where a really good candidate could pull off an upset and Larry Kissell in NC.

Even leaving aside the fact that coattails help an anonymous candidate, whereas Kissell can probably win on his own if the general situation is at all favourable, that's a tiny amount.

The truth is that there are very few natural Dem targets in the South or the Midwest. All the potential gains are tough asks. And those candidates who will be on defence will just disassociate themselves if they feel it necessary. And those who will feel it necessary trend to the right of the party, so they'll probably do it anyway.

Any ad trying to tie Zack Space, for example, to Hillary will fall flat on its face, because most of his district will probably support the stance.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:51:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, this is just an opinion, (none / 0)

for congressional seats there are some not a lot - but they exist.

heath schuler for instance probably doesn't want Hillary at the top of the ticket in western NC.

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, this is just an opinion, (3.00 / 1)

I have to confess to a complete lack of interest in whether or not Heath Shuler gets re-elected. I suspect a more progressive Democrat could be elected in his place, but either way, he's just one.

Working on the basis that 16 seats must turn Republican to flip the house, and if we assume Shuler will lose if Hillary runs (which is not certain, because as I mentioned, he'll run the ticket like a rat from a sinking ship,) that leaves 15 others. I'll grant you the two Georgia representatives who were run close, because they're living on borrowed time, and I'll be generous and assume that 5 Dem representatives not from the South or the Mountain West/Republican Plains states lose their seats.

Now tell me who the 8 southern Dems are who'll hand the House to the Republicans.

Because honestly, losing Heath Shuler just doesn't sound that bad to me.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:26:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, this is just an opinion, (none / 0)

my point wasn't about heath schuler per se.

It was a general point that there are districts that dem's won 52-48 in 06... or lost 52-48.. Indiana and kentucky come to mind. So in districts like that a few extra percent that come out to "stop" HIllary can make a difference.

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 08:02:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, this is just an opinion, (none / 0)

Yes. Each candidate will have both positive and negative effects down ballot.

by domma on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

of course... (none / 0)

she failed to do just that -- even though it was part of her strategy -- in 2006...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:13:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course... (none / 0)

what are you talking about? She converted some counties that went to Bush in 04 in NY State

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:19:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course... (none / 0)

yes, hillary won some counties that had gone to bush in 04. the problem with this inference of yours is that even though she was at the top of the ticket, had universal name recognition and spent a lot of money, she did not get as many votes as spitzer who ran against a more viable opponent. running against a weaker opponent and being at the top of the ticket should have given her more votes than spitzer. only three counties in both races went to the republican...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 07:55:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's big rallies down south (none / 0)

I think one interesting thing about down-ticket races is that Obama has shown he can turn out huge crowds in places like Atlanta and Austin.
This would be a huge asset in drawing even just media attention to Senate candidates in those places, let alone energizing Democrats in states where others fear to tread. I think he's shown that he can campaign just about anywhere and be well-received.
Now, I'll admit that could change, and the size of his crowds could very well decline as time goes by and his newness wears off a little, but so far he's defied all of those predictions.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:20:05 PM EST

Re: Obama's big rallies down south (none / 0)

I forgot that. And people keep forgetting that the south has "huge" black population and a rising hispanic populus. And I thought his "newness" would have worn off already, but it looks like it has not.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:22:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's big rallies down south (3.00 / 0)

I think it's also likely that Obama could end up with a small-donor database the likes of which has never been seen before.
He had 100,000 donors in the first quarter ending in March, added at last 42,000 in April... That list, many of them new donors, could be worth gold if he helped use it in the general election to help out Senate and House candidates.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's big rallies down south (none / 0)

Atlanta and Austin are Dem strongholds. If he can show he'll increase turnout in these areas, he'll have provided the best argument as to why he ought to be the nominee, but Atlanta is the only thing distinguishing Georgia from the less progressive parts of Kyrgystan and Austin is one of Texas' bluer parts.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards (1.00 / 0)

John Edwards
Some of you will shoot me for this, but the more time passes, the more his "haircut" deal pisses me off. Why? I see it as a stategic, tactical, and personal failure, and one that was so easy to avoid that it makes me question his judgment in a long, tough, presidential battle.

Strategic: There are two narratives Edwards' opponents are building against him -- one, that he's a "pretty boy", and two, that he's so rich he's out of touch with "regular" people. And in one fell swoop, Edwards reinforced both negative narratives!

Tactical: The only reason anyone knew about that haircut was because it was in campaign finance disclosures. Why was it in those disclosures? Because he used campaign funds to pay for the haircut! If he wants his pimp haircuts, I couldn't care less. But why do it in such a way that it's easy for your enemies to use against you?

Personal: I don't know Edwards' net worth, nor care. But he has a lot of money. I'm willing to bet that most of the small dollar donors Edwards has solicited don't have that much. For them, that $20 or $50 or even $100 contribution is a big sacrifice. Yet given the choice between taking out his own checkbook or having his campaign pay for the $400 the haircut cost, someone made the choice to put this on the contributors. More than anything, it's this that offends me about this incident. People expect their money to be well spent by campaigns, not used as personal slush funds for whatever luxuries they may want.

So as stupid and media-driven as that whole "haircut" mess may have been, it really was a disaster on way too many levels to completely ignore and shrug off

by lambiel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:24:38 PM EST

Superficial Media Coverage (3.00 / 1)

In a mature political society something as unimportant as a haircut would not even be on the political agenda. Your comment is a testimony to how shallow and superficial politics and political coverage of elections is in America.

Does anyone believe that a single person will cast their vote dependent on how much Edwards paid for a haircut? Stop playing into the media horserace game.

by JollyBuddah on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:32:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superficial Media Coverage (none / 0)

Yes. To be honest, it's hard for me to vote for Edwards under any circumstances. He just reminds me of the very unpleasant persons we've encountered in our lives. It's a guts feeling, nothing particularly political.

People vote on their guts.

by lambiel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superficial Media Coverage (none / 0)

issues canvassing over more than a decade reports that this is not true. but it is a common misperception (the whole reason we tested the notion was because someone at lcv believed that, as well)...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what about Hillary's $2500 hairdresser (3.00 / 1)

expenses for her senate campaign?

the sham is Hillary spends more on makeup than most women do by a factor of a thousand yet that gets no mainstream media coverage..

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superficial Media Coverage (none / 0)

do you forget what country we live in? OF COURSE PEOPLE WILL VOTE SOLELY BASED ON THE HAIRCUT!

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (3.00 / 1)

this argument is pretty simple. think about how you feel about george bush. or newt gingrich. does they motivate you to elect democrats? well, that's how hillary effects conservatives and republicans. no one gets the visceral reaction that hillary does.

this also appears to be true to a lesser extent to independents. hillary is seen as the quintessential partisan, part of the bitter divide. her negatives are twice as high as anyone else's. anyone else at the top of the ticket would be better for down ballot candidates than hillary...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:26:27 PM EST

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

You're making yourself even more foolish. Did Bush's high negativity prevent him from winning in 2004?

by lambiel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

I don't believe Bush's negatives were well over 50%. But since you started this, post the link.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:32:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

Can you please SHOW where Clinton's negatives are "well over 50%." I have seen the opposite happening. She was getting the negatives down and her positives up. You know the polls, I don't have to link. So, why make something up that can be shown to be false?

by georgep on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:45:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

george is full of it, again. the prior USA Today/Gallup Poll had clinton at 52% negatives. other polls:

POLL            DATE        NEG    CHANGE
NBC News/WSJ Poll. June 8-11, 2007.    42%    (-1)
CBS News/NY Times Poll. May 18-23, 2007    42%    (-4)
USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 4-6, 2007.    47%    (-5)

george appears to want to belittle hillary's high negatives because he thinks that her dlc positions are more appealing and will be given a pass. he needs to spend some time in some focus groups...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

Please don't be so confrontational. "Full of it again"? No need to act trollish when you want to rebut a point made.

I stated that no poll is showing Clinton "well above 50%" and you provided the evidence right there. 42% negatives is NOT "well over 50%." Even the Gallup had her well under 50% (according to your own numbers a turnaround of 5%.) The same is true for the Quinnipiac poll, which showed her numbers at 44% negatives. CBS and NBC had her at 42%, as you point out. Hardly killer-negatives when Obama's own negatives (as per Rasmussen) are at 44%.

I find it hilarious that your own numbers confirm my statement that polls don't have her at "well above 50% negatives," but you still claim that "I am full of it again." There is zero logic in your post, 'bored now.'

by georgep on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:17:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

Gallup did have it at 52%, I have to find the link, I will post it. But had to chuckle @ this:

There is zero logic in your post, 'bored now.'

Lord, it is going to be a long, hot, summer on the blogs!!

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

At SOME point Gallup had it at that, that is correct. but you made it seem like it is the HERE and NOW, which is not true. There is not a single poll that shows Clinton in over 50 territory. The Gallup shows Clinton getting her negatives down by 5%, other polls have shown the same. A few more debates, and off come another 5%.

Yes, I stated that no current poll is showing "well over 50%" and "bored now" showed exactly that, while trying to rebut my comment. I find it comical when my work is done for me in an attempt to actually counter a point. At least it saved me some digging. Thanks. :-)

by georgep on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

No I did not state here and now. Gallup 52, recent Rassmussen 49, we call can do the math.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

i'm simply more objective, george. when you're right, i'll support it. it's when you start making stuff up that i'll call you on it. i know that seems "confrontational"...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 07:58:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

full of it again... (none / 0)

i think that's the third time today. more than one == again.

making a semantical argument that 52% isn't well above 50% is just another variation of the game you like to play. i'm dumbfounded that you would mock this characterization when you've shown that you have no problem making stuff up about people's arguments...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:44:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: full of it again... (none / 0)

One poll. Quite possibly not representative of the actual voting universe. Of someone who's been attacked by Republicans for getting on for two decades. Yes, Hillary has high negatives. But everybody has an opinion on her. She won't win a massive victory. But the right-wing noise machine makes it near impossible for anybody to get more than a 5% majority.

Until you show me more than one poll showing her with negatives above 50% and substantiate the accuracy of the voter screens, I'll be unconvinced.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:10:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: full of it again... (none / 0)

don't get me wrong, i was merely pointing out what i think george should have known (because he follows this stuff).

hillary is in a unique position. she is so well known that people already have an opinion of her. she can't get higher name recognition, which means she's basically an incumbent. this is pretty much unknown territory for a non-incumbent. to me, i see hillary with high negatives now, before the republicans start in on her. i suspect that she will have really high negatives after the gop spends a billion attacking her, and she spends at least half that trying to avenge wrongs. hillary on the ticket promises to be the most negative campaign ever.

one of my problems with this is that democrats and independents are much more likely to drop out of the electorate in the face of a scorched earth campaign. republicans will be eager, nay excited, to vote against a clinton. i'd bet you see the highest absentee vote total ever with her on the ticket -- and republicans will win an overwhelming majority of those votes (because democrats don't like to absentee vote)...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: full of it again... (none / 0)

You think Republicans haven't already spent vast sums attacking her? Granted, my remembrance of the 90s isn't great (I was born in 1987 - I heard about the 1992 election from my American year 1 teacher and aside froma few Correspondent reports on the 1996 primaries and a couple of articles on the impeachment I knew next to nothing about American politics before 1999,) but didn't the Republicans spend most of the 1990s doing that?

Undoubtedly she's divisive, but for those few voters without an opinion, attacking her because she's an independent woman (which is the gist of most of the Republican attacks on her) is not really workable anymore. And I don't buy the theory of Democratic disengagement. A little red meat and the reminder that the alternative is Rudy McRomney is power enough to get Dems to the polls, without the exploitation of high negatives and overwhelmingly negative media that could be exploited to produce a "Fuck the media - Vote Clinton" (better, worded, of course,) to motivate those driven away by what will undoubtedly be a horribly sexist coverage.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:50:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: full of it again... (none / 0)

i mean this particular election cycle. i haven't seen evidence of republicans spending millions attacking her this year, but i could be wrong. of course, the fact that republicans have spent millions attacking her before is why she has high negatives now...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 08:00:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: full of it again... (none / 0)

Actually, he can't show a SINGLE poll that is "above" 50%, let alone "well above 50%." That is because none exist. He even stated as much by pointing to an ealier Gallup poll, which of course is no longer valid, as a newer Gallup poll shows a different picture. Most of the polls are now in 42%, 41% negative territory, which is by no means "critical," even eclipsed by Obama in Rasmussen's.

by georgep on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

Rasmussen's report today showed Hillary's un-favorables at 49%

by BDM on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

Link please.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

There has not been a recent update on Clinton's negative ratings on Rasmussen. I believe the data you cite is close to 2 months old now. As you can see from other polls, Clinton has managed to get her negatives down by 5% inside the Quinnipiac poll, the Gallup poll, and she also lowered her negatives in the polls that show her at 42% neg (NBC/WSJ, CBS poll.) So, it is anyone's guess what their neg/pos. numbers look like today. It probably would similarly show a decline of her negatives, like the other polls, but we won't know until they actually publish a new survey on that topic.

by georgep on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:12:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

I want to see the links. And recent ones. Because her negs is between 45-47, and she is the highest of the candidates. They are not moving so much, because people know her. That is why I state that we will see Obama's solidify after Labor Day. I would like to see Hillary's go down more. And again forget the debates, nobody is watching these debates yet.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

Did you not see "bored now"'s list? Clinton's negs are generally well below what you claim here. NBC/WSJ has it at 42%, NYT/CBS the same 42%, 41% in the Opinion Dynamics poll. Those are 3 recent polls in which her negatives are below Obama's current Rasmussen negs of 44%.

Generally, many of those who see her in debates like her. As we move further along, more and more people will tune into these debates. More and more people will like what they see. That brings negatives down naturally. But, as I stated, at this point Clinton has done a good job turning her negatives around to a point where there is no real appreciable difference between her and Obama.

The big question is really: Where does Obama's relatively high negative rating come from? He has been currying favor on the Republican side, has been received rather positively there, so a lot of his current problems must be coming from the Democratic side.

by georgep on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:27:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

Obama is at 44 so he may overtake Clinton's negatives very shortly.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:48:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

Last time when i checked George W. Bush's 'negative' coattails, he almost wiped all running democrats in red/purple states off the map in 2004.

by lambiel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

Bush's job approval rating on the eve of the 2004 election was 51%

by BDM on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:25:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

so, if her numbers stay the same and possibly go up, what does that mean?

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

stop talking, for HRC's sake (none / 0)

by jforshaw on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

bush's negatives were in a range in 2004 from 35% to 45% right before the election, depending on the poll. in the year before the election 2003, bush polled negatives in the 26% to mid-30s range.

the problem with this argument, of course, is that the republicans have historically underpolled and they have a far superior voter contact operation than democrats.

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

Had. Karl Rove had 'the math'. Didn't matter.

The institutional advantage is closing, and the advantage of the megachurches is coming to be matched by the blogosphere. The Republicans cannot crush you merely by clicking their fingers.

Also, the gain in Bush's negatives in a year is instructive. That was for people who'd had him as president for three years, two years after the most traumatic incident on American soil since Pearl Harbour, perhaps since the Civil War. You don't think we can make any Republican nominee have negatives 5 points higher than that?

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

i've done too many campaigns; i still have to train democrats, i still see crappy databases (van, etc), i still see an absence of a universal campaign doctrine, i still see a basic misunderstanding of what gotv involves.

i have yet to buy the potential of the blogosphere argument. republicans have bloggers too, and i believe pew showed that they were more likely (by ten percentage points) to be involved than democrats.

now some of the people i trained in oppo worked on the tpm project, but, again, republicans have bloggers, too (and bloggers more likely to be trained in republican doctrine, including message). so i don't buy the blogosphere advantage because it is evenly distributed. probably only in 04 could it have been a decisive factor and we all know what happened then.

i completely agree that the rise in bush's negatives is instructive. hillary's negatives can only go up, as republicans focus all their fire on her if she wins the nomination. the same is true of whoever wins the democratic nomination -- but the difference is that others will start from a lower position and republicans will have to work harder/smarter to get a different democrat to the same place. hillary makes it easy, she has a target-rich background, and everything that gets said feeds the perspective of the clinton psychodrama. from the message perspective, it's just too easy...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 08:25:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

here are some poll results for some states (a lot of purple states)

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surve yusa_16_giuliani_vs.php

HRC can get every state Kerry did, plus Iowa, Ohio, and Minnesota, and is in a statistical tie in two others (if elections were held today). So much for your argument... in fact, its making me BORED

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:45:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos says Hillary has Negative Coattails (none / 0)

i don't believe giuliani will be the nominee, which is why i haven't spoken up about that. sorry...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

by bored now on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 08:25:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No less than who? (none / 0)

That is a HOOT!

What makes him an expert? Because he is up with his HTML he knows Presidential races now?

2 things.

One, people can seperate the candidates. Why do you think over the years so many Democratic Presidential candidates have won NY big, and Republicans have done well on the ticket also. Why do you think that in NC the opposite is true (NC is an even better example bnecause Demopcrats win down ticket in metro areas and rural areas out east)?

Secondly, this Hillary as the boogeyman is total bs. If Hillary wins it will be because she excites the base and attracts a lot of women and minorities to the polls. If she does that Democrats down ticket will be more than just fine.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:20:07 PM EST

Re: No less than who? (none / 0)

you are living in a fantasy world, why aren't the small deonors giivng shitload of money to her? where are all the huge rallies if she's so fucking exiting to people?

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No less than who? (none / 0)

How many of those at the rallies are even registered to vote? How many on MySpace will even be 18 by November 2008?
Since 1968 only one candidate running the type of campaign Obama is running has ever been nominated, his name was George McGovern

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No less than who? (none / 0)

As McGovern himself put it, he "opened the doors of the Democratic party, and 20 million left." Those guys aren't there anymore. The Dixiecrats are long gone, and that's no bad thing.

Historical analogies are dodgy at the best of time. That one's just absurd.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No less than who? (none / 0)

I am sure that they are gathering information at these rallies, all of them.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:22:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean had huge rallies in '03 (none / 0)

Kerry had em in '04.

Didn't make a dimes worth of difference. You have to have the killer instinct and know how to win.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:35:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No less than who? (none / 0)

One thing is for sure, Obama is certainly not really doing it for DEMOCRATS. Perhaps it is his courting of Republicans, his debate performance and subsequent coverage, his lack of partisan fire (Jerome Armstrong reported that in over 17 emails sent to his supporters, the word DEMOCRAT or DEMOCRATIC appeared not once) or whatever.

by georgep on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 08:55:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No less than who? (none / 0)

People don't care about that George, not now.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:47:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No less than who? (3.00 / 1)

There is no evidence of this.

The senate candidates in 2006 did not want to be seen with her on the campaign trail. She did closed door fund raisers and once in a while a picture, but she did not go out on the campaign trail for Webb, Ford, Brown, McCaskill, Klobucher, Cantrell and Stabanow. They thought she would have a negative impact on their campaigns.

by BDM on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:30:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No less than who? (none / 0)

So, what does this say for 2008? Everyone keep thinking that all the women will come out and she will sweep everyone in, I don't think so. All politics are local. You can vote one way for the president and split that ticket in a minute for congress. So, we will see.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:47:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No less than who? (none / 0)

They didn't exactly run revolutionary campaigns. In 2006 slapping around a Republican was easy, so why take the risk of contact with a potentially divisive figure? That doesn't mean she was as poisonous as she was thought.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Extra Extra Read All About It ! (3.00 / 1)

"Markos says Hillary has "Negative Coattails"

________

Wow! You expected anything different from Markos? Heck, he can no longer say Hillary's Iraq vote will crush her (because it didn't and it won't). He can no longer say her unwillingness to offer a sobbing apology will crush her (because it didn't and it won't).

For those who claim that polls are useless this early and don't mean anything, how about adopting the same philosophy when it comes to polls about favorables vs unfavorables. Or is it just easier to support polls that bolster your animosity for Hillary, but disregard those that show your own candidates doing so poorly.

While it hasn't even been that long since Giuliani entered the race, Hillary is now starting to catch up to him and, in some cases, surpass him. But let's not give the woman an ounce of effin' credit for any of it. It must be a mistake! It must be the media! It must be Penn! Given the incredible progress Hillary has made this far in her campaign, with every single male in the race (on both sides) trying to keep up with her, I'd just like to congratulate the woman for her success against all of those so-called unfathomable obstacles.

She's got Chris Matthews spewing spittle; Sean Hannity throwing his arms all over the place; four suppoedly well-respected authors/journalists wondering if they wasted a decade of their meaningless little lives on their Hillary bios which, if anything, have only seemed to increase their target's lead, and you can be sure Karl Rove is at the drawing board wondering what to do.

So I log on to dailykos today and what do I see?

"Markos says Hillary Has Negative Coattails"

It just gets funnier and funnier around here.

by samueldem on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:35:42 PM EST

i love you! (1.00 / 1)

Heck, he can no longer say Hillary's Iraq vote will crush her (because it didn't and it won't). He can no longer say her unwillingness to offer a sobbing apology will crush her (because it didn't and it won't).

You made my day, exactly my thought. Lots of sour grapes. I am waiting for lots of BOYS to pee in their pants when Hillary cruises to the white house.

by lambiel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gee... (3.00 / 1)

That's impressive, I doubt anyone ever felt that strongly about Maggie Thatcher.

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 11:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards is going to really go hard (none / 0)

on Hillary's electability, he can't really out anti-war anyone because he still did vote for it but him pointing out that Hillary can't even go into red america much less win thier votes is a devastating one.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:59:29 PM EST

yes, I see him doing this in the next debate (none / 0)

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:27:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards is boxed in nationally (none / 0)

he tried to out flank Obama to become the HRC alternitive on the left and it's not working so I think now he might go hard on "electability" hoping to bring down Hillary's numbers especially in the early states where they are more likely to pay attention to such arguments this far out.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:36:53 PM EST

If he want to do this, (none / 0)

and it is early, he needs to run TV ADS. Pure and simple. Obama and Clinton don't have to, they have the cash.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:48:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Markos says. And? (3.00 / 2)

Markos has an ingrained bias. He's on the right of the Democratic party (see all his "Libertarian Democrat" bullshit) and afraid to endorse a real liberal. See his support for Jon Tester and Jim Webb, candidates who are much more conservative than the base of his readership. As he is himself, to be honest.

That's not to say he's hostile to liberal candidates. But he prefers "Fightin' Dems", who incidentally had a pretty awful record of being elected to office in 2006. Opposition to Hillary Clinton, who's both more liberal than he's comfortable with and insufficiently anti-war, is natural on his part (which is not to say that I don't think Clinton should be more anti-war, just that Markos is neither representative nor entirely neutral.)

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:40:15 PM EST

You may have a point here... (none / 0)

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:48:48 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.