Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

TarHeel wrote a diary that I could refer to as nothing less than putrid about Hillary's "drag" potential on down ballot races.  I will tell you what a drag is:  A wannabe with limited experience as anything other than a lawyer who fails to get out from under his wife's shadow and is better known for his haircut than his policy.

But wait, I forgot.  He is a Southern white protestant male landowner so it should be fine.  Silly me.  I am so sick of the Hillary can't make it thing.  Or the Hillary is so polarizing thing.  Or the baggage thing.  Here is a polling thing:  http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=938  According to Chris, Hillary not only wins right now, she realigns the map.  Carries Texas against Romney, and probably would even against Giuliani.  Now who do you think is really more worried?  Tim Johnson if we nominate Hillary or John Cornyn if they nominate Romney?

One Hillary supporter, georgep, calls it a poverty of argument, and I would have to agree.  When your candidate can give no good reason as to why you should vote for him or her, I supppose you have no choice other than to dredge up myth.  And the Hillary is unelectable thing is a myth.  Check out Quinnipiac on Ohio with Todd Beeton's analysis:  

Candidate Sept. 6 July 12 May 16 Net Change on Favorability:
Edwards 54/26 46/29 44/29 +13
Clinton 51/43 49/42 46/45 +7
Obama 47/25 45/22 42/22 +2
McCain 44/28 40/31 45/28 -1
Giuliani 48/30 50/27 54/26 -10

Note that this is the first time that Clinton's favorability has been over 50% and Giuliani's has been under 50%. Clearly, the more voters get to know these candidates, their previously majority-held preconceptions (in Rudy's case, positive, and in Clinton's case, negative) get reversed. It's also interesting that McCain is seeing an uptick, certainly reflecting the sentiments of the Luntz post-debate focus group last night where people appear to be giving McCain a second (or third or fourth) look. And then of course, there's the Edwards surge, which so far is not reflected in his Ohio Dem primary numbers (he's in 3rd at 11% -- actually slightly down from May -- although keep in mind that Gore is included) but a surge there is something to look for.

What we're seeing here, folks, are blue state-like numbers.

It should be noted that Edwards ranks better in this department, yet the key thing to look at is Hillary's ability to swing opinion from negative to positive which is presenting itself in polling all over the country.  In this article,http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_ro om/2005/05/04/kerry/index.html John Zogby is quoted as saying Hillary can take "the somewhat unfavorables and turn them into somewhat favorables".

Also, an excerpt on the lessons of electability from a winger, Robert Moran with polling evidence:  http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mo ran200405071254.asp

Just how bad has Kerry been shredded by the Bush campaign? A quick review of the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey shows that Kerry's image dropped from 43-percent positive to 30-percent negative in March 2004 to 38-percent positive to 38-percent negative currently. In other words, the Bush campaign, despite all the cheerleading for Kerry in the press, was able to reduce Kerry's favorables by five points and increase Kerry's negatives by eight points.

Point is, Edwards can tout "electabiity" all he wants, it comes down to responding to attacks, and the Clintons are masterful at it.  Edwards may want you to think he is electable, but he can not even fend off stories about his haircut, much less stand up to the mighty machine of smear.  "Lightweight" is the word I believe.

Hillary?  She can fight and swing polls in her favor and that is clear.  The bottom line is that Democrats want her on the front line, period.  Her favorables are huge among Democrats and she is seen as someone who win or lose, won't
have any bullets left in her gun.  Something many Democrats, including myself, question about the others.  It takes balls to win, guys.  Don't blame Hillary, a woman, for having the biggest pair.

Tags: Hillary, myth, South (all tags)



Coattails don't exist in this day and age

The media age has essentially done away wtih coattails which once helped voters pick races down the ticket when no information was avaialable to them about those races.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 03:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Coattails don't exist in this day and age

The Clintons' Centrism has failed the Democratic Party. Centrism has no core values and the Clintons did NOT build the Dem Party during the 90s - even as Repubs were building their base.

A Hillary prez will inspire more Blue Dog and Centrist ideology and candidates - not Progressives.
We need REAL CHANGE - we need John Edwards.

by annefrank 2007-09-07 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Coattails don't exist in this day and age

Madam, real big change would be Dennis Kucinich.  John Edwards?  Take a look at this: http://www.slate.com/id/2085343  I love the part about "talking tough to the left".

by Todd Bennett 2007-09-07 04:42AM | 0 recs
These people are all wound up

It is causing many to lose reason.

There basically isn't a dimes worth of difference between Clinton, Edwards or Obama.  It is simply a question of a) who has the best chance of winning, and b) who would govern most effectively if elected.   But anyone who is pushing the idea that one is really different than the other is just either pushing their candidate, or living in a fantasy land.

Real change would have to come from a totally different type of candidate.  You point out  Kucinich.  Of course than type of candidate doesn't have a snowballs chance.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: These people are all wound up

You make a good point that I assume you are willing to apply to Senator Clinton?

So that when her partisans talk about how much better her positions on the issues are, I can expect a post from you saying there is not a dime's worth of difference between her positions and the other candidates?

I get your point about how the real issue is responding to attacks and running a solid and winning campaign.  I give credit to Clinton on this score.  It is impressive and I wish the Edwards campaign was more effective.   But the game is not over.  And even in losing, players can set the pace of the game.

But there are other concerns as well, at least for me.

I think the single most important problem we Americans face is economic inequality.  Setting aside policies for a second, I think Edwards BEST articulates the moral basis for responding to poverty and inequality of opportunity.  I also think unions are a key to reversing the tide and with Edwards - whether as true believer or as one wholly indebted to labor should he win - I can see him holding a prime time press conference on the need for union strength.  I do not see that from Obama or Clinton.

Despite the occasional jab here a lawyers, I actually have a lot of respect for lawyers, particularly the most gifted ones like Edwards.  Accomplishing what he did as one of America's most effective lawyers not working as a big corporate lawyer shows he is incredibly hard working, extremely intelligent, and a remarkably effective communicator with the types of average folks on juries.  Unlike some others, I take his professional life as something for which he should be very proud and which progressives should applaud.  I acknowledge some others disagree.

He raises those issues to the foreground using an effective way of framing them that will resonate (I think) broadly, even if people have concerns about haircuts and the litany of right wing and MSM smears I am dismayed to see recycled on a progressive blog.  I can see him going to rural Michigan, Oregon, and elsewhere and connecting with folks I do not think Clinton or Obama will be as effective connecting with.  Sometimes it seems good Democrats feel there are only a bunch of George Wallace disciples in rural America.  I assure you that is not true.

These are people I care about. I'm not saying those who support other candidates don't care, I'm just describing where I am coming from. I do think a great many Democrats have too little understanding and respect for the struggles of rural Americans in particular and it breaks my heart that the GOPers succeed selling them snake oil and hate.  I grew up in Oregon and saw it all the time in timber, fishing, and farming communities, including some I have lived and worked in.  It goes like this: 'LP's not the enemy, it's those liberal environmentalists'; 'Cargill's not robbing you blind, it's those pesky Indians getting uppity about their water'.  I want a President who is truly on their side and can cut through the lies spread by GOPers.  It's not for me about race or gender it's about can you talk about rural poverty with some effectiveness. That's impressionistic, I know, but there you have it.

I know some feel he is just pandering but I disagree and do not find those claims persuasive based on what is known about Edwards and that perhaps I am less cynical on that score.

This is the dimes worth of difference I see.  Whatever the policies adopted, Edwards has demonstrated the greatest and most rhetorically effective capacity to push the issues at the top of my list.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-09-07 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: These people are all wound up

I like Edwards positions, and I am glad that he is running, as he pushes the field further to the left (from the sidelines.)   And I also like Edwards as a person.   However, I have major apprehension about the 'candidate,' or better, the 'messenger.'   He lost a lot of my respect when he claimed that he worked for the hedgefund (which is heavily involved in damaging sub-prime loans and subsequent massive foreclosures even of Katrina victims) to "learn about financial markets as they relate to poverty."   With all the attention about the other problems Edwards has with the media, that one was my personal disqualifier, because I am not interested in that type of stuff (in other words, I have been around the block and was not born yesterday.)

by georgep 2007-09-07 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: These people are all wound up

Edwards is the candidate that grew up poor the son of a millworker and not from a priviledged background such as Hillary's whose parents could afford to send her to Vassar.

He is the story of rags to riches the american dream.

by BDM 2007-09-07 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: These people are all wound up

Is that suppose to make me want to vote for him?

by RJEvans 2007-09-07 09:30AM | 0 recs
Hillary's background

Well, since Hillary didn't go to Vassar, I don't think you're the best source for information about Hillary.

Try some facts next time.

by LakersFan 2007-09-07 04:43PM | 0 recs
Stop abusing your TU

status with "1s" for comments with which you disagree.  It's wrong.

by TomP 2007-09-08 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: These people are all wound up

I try to be honest so I will tell you that I agree that this answer was just ridiculous.  I like Edwards because of his position on the issues, but yea, this statement was horrible.

by Andy Katz 2007-09-07 09:50AM | 0 recs
hillary loses by all standards...

any more?

just because hillary doesn't represent real change does not mean that others do not.  your logic if flawed, because you start from an inaccurate presumption...

by bored now 2007-09-07 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: These people are all wound up

This post is the fantasy.  Look I understand that this is Clinton's strategy-to say that there is not any difference among the top three candidates-but that is ridiculous.  Edwards is more progressive on Iraq, poverty, health care and trade then CLinton.  So yea, if these issues arent important to you then there is no difference at all.

by Andy Katz 2007-09-07 09:46AM | 0 recs
Edwards was a DLCer

At the end of the day the legislation he will propose to Congress, and more importantly get back from Congress to sign, won't look any different than Clinton's.

Edwards is running to the left in the primary to gain some seperation between he and Obama / Clinton.  I see nothing in his past make up that suggests he would govern much different than he voted in the Senate, and even he had wanted to he has to contend with Congress and Republicans in the Senate.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards was a DLCer

THe question is about the candidates themselves. and not what compromise the process may require. Its a fundamentally different view.  you are trying to play politican about it, and there are otehrs who simply see it as best to choose the candidate who will best expouse the progressive position because whatever compromise that may eventually happen will have a better result than starting from the point of already giving up half. if you want an example of failure look at the present congress right now and why this strategy of overthinking things can be itself a failure.

by bruh21 2007-09-07 11:41AM | 0 recs
The only failure in Congress

Is that there are too many Republicans.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 05:27PM | 0 recs

read my sig line and take it up with tarheel.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-07 05:08AM | 0 recs

Comments like these are sending me to Hillary Clinton's camp.  


by nascardem 2007-09-07 02:57PM | 0 recs
coattails are not the factor the media might like.

to portray, but they still influence elections.  coattails are still statistically significant in some races.  we actually have the means to test the influence of coattails, and do so after every election.  one factor is whether candidates follow the norm in the percentage of ballots cast.  for example, the top of the ticket (totals) tends to receive 97% of all ballots cast.  the next race down sees a slight drop-off.  etc, etc.

you can test hillary's effects on a down ballot race last year.  the governor's race (two places down from hillary, but a highly interesting race nonetheless) produced 98.979% of the votes cast in her u.s. senate race.  but spitzer outperformed hillary, getting 70,543 more votes and winning votes in different locales.  down ballot races from that tended to follow the gubernatorial trend  rather than hillary's results.  we find evidence of coattails, just not from her.

what is more interesting is that hillary faced a sacrificial lamb of a republican, someone with little name recognition in the state, but he still got 103,055 more votes than the republican in the gubernatorial race (which had a slightly smaller vote total).  even in the blueists of states, hillary brings out republicans against her.

the trouble is if this is magnified in more reddish states...

by bored now 2007-09-07 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

it comes down to responding to attacks, and the Clintons are masterful at it.

I don't want to take anything away from Bill Clinton.  Obviously he's a supremely gifted politician.  But fact is, without Ross Perot stealing tons of libertarian and nativist votes from Bush in 1992 Clinton probably never would have been elected president.  

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think we're underestimating how difficult it is for a Democrat to beat a Republican head-to-head with no major third party candidates running.  

by Will Graham 2007-09-07 03:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Not true.  Paul Begala said there exit polling showed, if anything, that Perot cost Bill a bigger victory.

by Todd Bennett 2007-09-07 04:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Lol.  Okey-dokey.

by IsThisOverYet 2007-09-07 06:46AM | 0 recs
iirc, perot was shown pulling from both sides...

i don't think his major influence was felt on election day though.  he was viewed as a crackpot by then...

by bored now 2007-09-07 07:12AM | 0 recs

You can prove anything by cherrypicking polls, whether pro-Edwards or pro-Clinton.

I can't believe you are still engaged in this nonsense after several months.

by Populism2008 2007-09-07 04:02AM | 0 recs
I can prove one thing with the polls

Hillary is winning.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I can prove one thing with the polls
If Hillary had balls - she wouldn't have sold her sold to Murdoch.
Oh wait - that's why she's "winning."
by annefrank 2007-09-07 04:28AM | 0 recs
Spelling alert

You meant "whining," of course.

by horizonr 2007-09-07 06:48AM | 0 recs
To clarify my position



Winning.  Winning going away.  Winning in what looks like it will be a rout.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 06:57AM | 0 recs
To clarify MY position

I'll stick with "whining," thanks.

by horizonr 2007-09-07 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: To clarify my position

So you arwe saying that she is already the winner of the election based on polls today.


by BDM 2007-09-07 09:02AM | 0 recs
She'll carry NH and probably IA

I think she may sweep the early states.

It depends on whether Edwards can really regain some momentum and sustain it.  I think Obama is pretty much running a vanity campaign at this point.  

My prediction for Obama is that he will shortly resort to the desperation move of camping out in two states.  Probably New Hampshire and more so South Carolina so that he can hopefully generate one face saving victory before he has to exit.  he he can't he concedes after South Carolina.

Edwards on the other hand can hope to play a Iowa win into a strong showing in NH and maybe SC and then hope he picks up a lot of additional support when Obama concedes.   That is a long shot but a better shot than Obama has.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 10:36AM | 0 recs

There was no need or incentive to continue with your diary after reading your first paragraph.  Rove could not have produced a more cartoonish screed.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-09-07 04:19AM | 0 recs
I think it is a better diary than most

A lot of stuff to reference there, whether you disagree with it or not.

Your quick dismissal and your attitude are unfair and uncalled for.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I think it is a better diary than most

You are correct.  I did read the whole diary and there are some good points.  

There is, however, good reason for my dismissive attitude (which I now regret, in part).

The opening paragraph is completely uncalled for and fits the description I gave.  I rarely see a need to take seriously diarists that openly declare such childishness in their opening words.

Recall that he sets up his argument by saying that Edwards is a drag because of his haircut, a wife he can't control, and because he is just a lawyer.  That's where the diarist starts.  Can't take such a diary seriously.  He packs like 6 ridiculous ad homs in the first four sentences.

Strip out that garbage and he has a good diary going that I would be willing to engage on serious terms.  Until then, no.

Should I pen a diary about Senator Clinton's weaknesses as I see them by starting out with a litany of right-wing smears of her?  Don't think that would or should be well-received.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-09-07 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I think it is a better diary than most

Problem is Trond, tell me any of the "ad homs" that are not true?

by Todd Bennett 2007-09-07 05:13AM | 0 recs
Who cares if they're true or not...

Hillary's unfair treatment by the right wing is no excuse for us risking a loss in the general election. Hillary had her time in the sun. It's time for her & Bill to move along and let the democratic party grow.

Hillary's candidacy is not about the democratic party, it's about her. And the country is too fucked, the world is suffering too much, too many people are dying, the environment is melting...our plate is too fucking full already to deal with the baggages the Clinton brings along. Hillary knows all this and I can't help but think she's selfish to even ask us to carry more load than we already have.

by cosbo 2007-09-07 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Who cares if they're true or not...

No offense, but this "Hillary is selfish for running" theme is about the most ridiculous thing one can possibly read on any board.   Some people need to seriously get over it already.  She is running.  If Edwards is miles better, than it will come through and he'll win walking away.  If he is not fit for the nomination, he will lose.  It is as simple as that.  

by georgep 2007-09-07 06:09AM | 0 recs
Well she's in the spotlight...

because of her husband, her hanging with traitors like Murdoch, her insider media buds, her access to tons of corporate & lobbyist monies...doesn't make her any more fit than George Bush, who incidentially, had the same kind of family/friends/insider connections. Didn't turn out too good for us, did it?

by cosbo 2007-09-07 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Well she's in the spotlight...

Well, you make even less sense than you did in the post in which you stated that "Hillary is selfish" for running.   "her insider media buds?"  "because of her husband?"  Seems very sour grapish.    You have to understand that these types of attack posts help Clinton more than they hurt.  

by georgep 2007-09-07 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Well she's in the spotlight...

LakersFan, you may disagree with this comment, but in no way is cosbo a troll.  

Further if you do that you should explain.

Uprating to counter the TR.

by pioneer111 2007-09-07 09:31PM | 0 recs
Thanks Pioneer!

I wasn't tryin' to troll, honest.

by cosbo 2007-09-07 09:34PM | 0 recs
what may seem ridiculous to some

may make sense to others.

It's been said before and will be said again, the Clinton presidency was good for Bill and Hillary Clinton but the Democratic Party was weaker at the end of those 8 years than at the beginning. I am not laying that all at the feet of the Clintons, but I do think that the 'move to the middle' and the 'third way' they advocated have not served the country well in hindsight.

That she and Bill have stood up against an almost endless barrage of right-wing smears is certainly to their credit, and I say 'bravo' to them both for doing so. I was a Clinton supporter in the 1st term, and supported him in his second (though at some point I really was getting tired of his making the situation worse). But I do not want another 4 or 8 years of those battles.

I can see why some consider Clinton's run for the White House selfish - she may have stood up to the Republican smears, but the country paid a price. We are going to have so many problems to contend with beginning in 2009 -- the prospect of having to deal with the Clinton-haters again (and I think those who actually hate them need to get some serious psychological counseling or at least some decent drugs) is exhausting to even think about. I haven't seen any evidence that Hillary Clinton has found a way to diminish that rabid bunch and their hangers-on; in fact, it seems many Democrats are almost as loath to have her and Bill back in the White House as the right-wing nuts.

by edgery 2007-09-07 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Who cares if they're true or not...
She is not the one on her second campaign for president.  She is not the one who couldn't even serve one term in the senate before running for President.  She is not the one with a spouse with end stage cancer who could leave the party up the creek with out a paddle if that spouse is suddenly near death (as very sad but very possible eventuality).  Clinton is not the selfish one here.
She is winning right now and has as much right to run as anyone and more right that John Edwards who puts himself and his ambition above the party, the country and his own children.
Elizabeth might be fine for 10 years or she might not, but in the middle of a campaign for president it is not just their business, it is also our business, like it or not.
So no Edwards supporter has a right to talk about selfishness.
by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-07 06:20AM | 0 recs
Ha, ha...you obviously don't know that...

Elizabeth made the choice to continue. I can't help it if you're too dense to see that they're running on Wade's dream. Ironically the one Hillary presented him an award for three weeks before he died.

This essay was written by Wade in the fall of his junior year.  It was entered into the National Conversation Essay Contest, conducted by the Voice of America and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Wade was one of ten national winners.  In March 1996, three weeks before his death, he attended the award ceremonies in Washington, D.C., which included a visit with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in the private residence at the White House.



   A little boy and his father walk into a firehouse. He smiles at people standing outside. Some hand pamphlets to his father. They stand in line. Finally, they go together into a small booth, pull the curtain closed, and vote. His father holds the boy up and shows him which levers to move.

   "We're ready, Wade. Pull the big lever now."

   With both hands, the boy pulls the lever. There it is: the sound of voting. The curtain opens. The boy smiles at an old woman leaving another booth and at a mother and daughter getting into line. He is not certain exactly what they have done. He only knows that he and his father have done something important. They have voted.

   This scene takes place all over the country.

   "Pull the lever, Yolanda."

   "Drop the ballot in the box for me, Pedro."

   Wades, Yolandas, Pedros, Nikitas, and Chuis all over the United States are learning the same lesson: the satisfaction, pride, importance, and habit of voting. I have always gone with my parents to vote. Sometimes lines are long. There are faces of old people and young people, voices of native North Carolinians in southern drawls and voices of naturalized citizens with their foreign accents. There are people in fancy clothes and others dressed in overalls. Each has exactly the same one vote. Each has exactly the same say in the election. There is no place in America where equality means as much as in the voting booth.

   My father took me that day to the firehouse. Soon I will be voting. It is a responsibility and a right. It is also an exciting national experience. Voters have different backgrounds, dreams, and experiences, but that is the whole point of voting. Different voices are heard.

   As I get close to the time I can register and vote, it is exciting. I become one of the voices. I know I will vote in every election. I know that someday I will bring my son with me and introduce him to one of the great American experiences: voting.

I'm quite comfortable with John & Elizabeth's level of unselfishness. And if my story was anywhere close to Edwards, you bet I'd be running for president too. I like where he's coming from.

by cosbo 2007-09-07 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Ha, ha...you obviously don't know that...

Beautiful post. Thanks!

by DoIT 2007-09-07 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Ha, ha...you obviously don't know that...

Wow, I never heard that before.  That's incredibly moving.

by Steve M 2007-09-07 07:03AM | 0 recs
Yeah. After reading that...

then I knew he was for real. Children don't grow up to be that way on their own.

by cosbo 2007-09-07 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Weak

I agree completely.  That juvenile rant lost me immediately.

by Steve M 2007-09-07 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Weak

So the truth is juvenile?  That's the problem with weak Democrats:  No guts.  They like to take the "high-road" to Loserville.  He had it voming, and I stand by it.  And I will tell you this:  I am pretty sure I am not the only one who thinks Edwards is a bit of a bitch.

by Todd Bennett 2007-09-07 05:41AM | 0 recs
A Hillary supporter probably should not...

...use the phrase "road to Loserville." Nominating her would be buying a one-way ticket there.

When more Democrats wake up to the fact that Hillary, not Bill, would be the one Americans would be faced with choosing in November 2008, they're not buying that ticket.

by MeanBoneII 2007-09-07 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: A Hillary supporter probably should not...

Show me a shred of polling to support your claim.

by Todd Bennett 2007-09-07 06:52AM | 0 recs
Only 42% of unaffiliated (aka swing) voters....

...think Hillary is likely to win a general election. Many Democrats think she can win, not realizing how unpopular she is outside the party:

The picture looks much different, however, among unaffiliated voters. Among this important segment of the voting population, 50% say Obama is at least somewhat likely to win if nominated. Forty-eight percent (48%) say the same about Edwards and just 42% see a Clinton victory as Somewhat or Very Likely.

Here's the link:  Check it out.

by MeanBoneII 2007-09-07 07:07AM | 0 recs
Good golly

boy was that a reach.

by Todd Bennett 2007-09-07 07:22AM | 0 recs
The fact that the people who actually...

...decide elections view Hillary as the least electable Democrat is a red flag. Rasmussen notes that this is an "important segment of the voting population" for good reason. They have the least politically biased view of the candidates, and they don't see Hillary as likely to win.

Calling this inconvenient fact a "reach" doesn't make it go away.

by MeanBoneII 2007-09-07 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Weak

You think you can persuade people by talking like Ann Coulter, that's your right.  I simply posted to point out that you're alienating people outside your little group of haters.

It really stuns me, though, to see Hillary supporters attacking Edwards for failing to keep his wife in her place.  I remember those same attacks back in 1992, and it sure wasn't Democrats making them.

by Steve M 2007-09-07 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

For some reason the links posted but are short and do not work.  Help would be appreciated.

by Todd Bennett 2007-09-07 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails
The Clintons are now in bed with the rightwing machine - and will toe the Centrist/Right line for the corporatists.
The corporate media and their corporate sponsors prefer Repubs and Centrists. That's why Hillary's pic is still prominent at www.DLC.org - and on the cover of Fortune Magazine.
by annefrank 2007-09-07 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Check out this work by Lori http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/1/11183 2/1242  

by Todd Bennett 2007-09-07 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

The above post by Lori links to information suggesting Hillary is 10 spots more liberal than Obama.

by Todd Bennett 2007-09-07 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Well, shucks, then let's just make Harold Ford chair of the DNC and have a clean sweep of 'progressives' running the party.  No room for Naderites and whiny PINO's here, let them go start their own party somewhere else.  They're basically just a nuisance and an embarrassment to 'real' progressives like Hillary come election time.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-07 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

facts suck don't they?  She is actually more progressive than Obama or Edwards, but if you can slide past that and post a lot of hyperbole maybe you can duck the facts.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-07 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Well are we talking about her voting record, largely in a minority Senate incidentally where one would not expect to see much in the way of progressive legislation to clarify this point, or her positions taken publicly in this campaign?  My litmus test is foreign policy and I am having more trouble differentiating her from some of our current policies than from the other candidates.

Facts, eh?  Love 'em.  Let's see...  Voted for the AUMF and regrets it but it wasn't a mistake, tick.  Believes the US is involved in a Global War on Terror, whatever that is, tick.  Reserves the option of an executive, pre-emptive first strike on sovereign powers without a declaration of war beyond the AUMF she regretted but voted for, tick.  Doesn't believe the time is right to normalise relations with Cuba, for pity's sake, tick.  Thinks that the US is safer from terrorism today, tick.  Refuses to commit to diplomatic discussions at the leadership level with Iran and North Korea, tick.  Doesn't believe a president, or candidate, should ever, ever forswear the first-use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, except she did once but as a senator, tick.  Yeah, she sure is a progressive but not the kind I was thinking of...

And while we are on the subject, what is her position on habeas corpus, the rule of law, the restoration of the Geneva Convention, the termination of the Guantanamo detention facility and extreme rendition?  Senator Obama has clearly stated his position on these issues but I am not aware of any unequivocal statements from her on the subject.

Or how about the rehabilitation of the separation of powers and reigning in the dominance of the executive which we have seen over the past eight years.  I haven't heard her say anything about that.

Hyperbole, incidentally, means exaggeration.  My previous comment was clearly sarcastic.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-07 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Shaun, you are not being factual here.

Since you are an Obama supporter:

Ideology rankings of Clinton and Obama, according to govtrack:

For Clinton:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.x pd?id=300022

Clinton is a radical Democrat according to GovTrack's own analysis of bill sponsorship. (Where do these labels come from?)

For Obama:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.x pd?id=400629

Obama is a rank-and-file Democrat according to GovTrack's own analysis of bill sponsorship. (Where do these labels come from?)

I don't know what it is that makes reasonable people succumb to viewpoints that don't sync with reality (i.e. nonsense like "Clinton is right-of-center," she is Bush-Lite, bla bla bla)    A bit more realism would be a great thing.   One pol is analyzed as a rank-and-file Democrat while the other is considered a radical Democrat ( = far to the left of the Democratic norm) based on solid bill crafting and bill co-sponsorship evidence.  So, why all the nonsense about GOP-lite, Bush-lite, right-of-center, when that does not reflect reality even by a smidgen?   I mean, it would not even hold true if Clinton showed as a "rank and file Democrat."  As you can see, the Ideometer needle for "rank-and-file Democrat"  Obama is still fairly well to the left (although getting closer to the ideological middle/center.)    But to use those types of attacks on a politician indentified as a radical far-left politician makes as much sense (none) as angry GOPers slamming Bush (because of his support for the hated Immigration bill) as a "liberal."  

by georgep 2007-09-07 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Well, not only wasn't I being factual I was being downright sarcastic but I see you take my point.  As for the ideometers, perhaps you should lift your gaze from the dashboard once and awhile and take a look out the windscreen.

She isn't 'right-of-centre,' to be sure, but to ignore the reality that Bill took the party toward the centre, and victory mind you, is to overlook our own natural history.  I am actually sympathetic to that strategy, as I love to see Democrats win, but I can't accept that Hillary, the DLC and the Clinton legacy represents the left wing of the Democratic party.  Do you believe that?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-07 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

As I have stated numerous times, Clinton was always the "radical" Democrat in the BC era.  I got good at making out her fingerprints all over legislation that was clearly far-left progressive in the Clinton era.  

I have offered lots of proof in many diaries as to Clinton's progressive history.  You just choose to ignore it and claim that it just does not exist.   I don't mind that you have your opinions, but it is not like I have not shown in many substantive diaries the many progressive bills she voted on, what initiatives she took while in the Senate, etc.  I can't make you go to the pond and drink the water, you are entitled to any opinion you wish to have.  

by georgep 2007-09-07 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

So do you accept the statement that Hillary, the DLC and the Clinton legacy represents the left wing of the Democratic party or not?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-07 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

I think he was focused on foreign policy and the GovTrack metric looks at bill sponsorship which will overweight domestic policies (in the context of this argument) because they are the majority of bills sponsored.

I think your response would be better if you addressed the specific issues he used to differentiate Obama and Clinton.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-09-07 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

I have pointed out the highly progressive nature of Clinton in many diaries, and have offered lots of proof.   Edwards' history is a lot more centrist, and he was actually a co-sponsor of the AUMF.  But, what does THAT have to do with progressive anyway?   I can tick a LOT of Obama's war votes and other measures that 'tick' him as a centrist.   Progressive to me is related to domestic policy (health care, education, abortion, stem cell, etc.)  Foreign policy is a different animal.  You either subscribe to an inward, insular policy (like right-winger Pat Robertson) or an outward policy, which has really nothing to do with Progressive/liberal/centrist/moderate/co nservative.  

by georgep 2007-09-07 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

oops, meant like right-winger Pat Buchanan

by georgep 2007-09-07 07:58AM | 0 recs
Regressive and progressive foreign policy visions

You have been a tireless advocate for your candidate and her progressive bona fides.  Your reasons, as I am sure you will acknowledge, have centered on Clinton's domestic priorities and legislative efforts.  I agree that history marks her as a progressive.

My point George was that you responded to a poster who said, in essence, 'I do not want to talk about domestic policies, I want to point out the differences between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy' and who then proceeded to identify a host of issues on which he thinks they differ with Clinton to the right of Obama.

To that post you replied, gee, look at this GovTrack metric which shows Clinton as more progressive.

To which I replied, 'that metric does not address the argument to which you were responding'.

That's about all I was pointing out.  I was not arguing either side of your debate with Appleby, I was not arguing that Clinton is not progressive (using foreign or domestic policy views), and I was not arguing that Edwards' foreign policy visions are the bees knees.  They are not, though he is worlds better than he was in 2004, at least at the level of rhetoric.

As an aside, I believe the foreign policy consensus that encompasses both parties, which I generally oppose, means the real differences among our candidates are found in domestic policy proposals and framing.  Here I find strengths for Edwards I see lacking in the others.

And I say this as one who generally thinks foreign policy issues are more important, I just don't believe actual behaviors would differ among our candidates in that arena.  It is not a difference maker in the way Appleby implied, as I view it.  But that does not make your reply to his argument germane.  It was not.

I have a different view of foreign policy than you express (acknowledging that your views are likely more complex than can be conveyed in a couple of sentences).

There is inward policy and there are outward policies.  There is Pax Americana, chest-thumping, pro-interventionism, America can do no wrong...and then there is another type of engaged internationalism deeply commited to global governance and that is not quasi-imperialistic or Pax Americana-like that I support.  Disarmament.  Sign the CTBT, weapons-free space treaty, sign the ICC, submit to Kyoto or its successors, refrain from arms sales, end covert intervention for the purposes of overthrowing governments, stop attacking any slightly left of center government, stop attacking Cuba and Venezuela, etc.  Problem is, in my view, our candidates do not embrace those positions.  Some day.  Some day.

So there is a both a regressive and a progressive variant of internationalism that could be articulated for American foreign policy. Appleby was saying she's the former and Obama's the latter.  To which you said (implicitly) 'Look at S-chip and education policy'.  Not germane.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-09-07 08:59AM | 0 recs
A third party in '08 would probably hurt R's

Nader will run again and I don't be anymore damaging than he was in '04.  People are a bit tired of his act.  It was easier to swallow in '00 when the world was right and Bush hadn't seen the inside of the Oval Office.

Any serious third party run would mostly likely come from the Republican side.  Hagel, Bloomburg, or some rightwing nut on a crusade against Giuliani or Romney should they be nominated.

Polling with Bloomberg in it, for instance, has shown that he hurts the Giuliani more than Clinton.  Although I doubt he runs.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: A third party in '08 would probably hurt R's

Nader only runs if Hillary is the nominee. He will get 5-7% OF THE VOTE BASED UPON HER WAR POLICIES.


by BDM 2007-09-07 09:06AM | 0 recs
Many on the left?

Who are these many?  Nader won't get anymore support than he got in '04.  

The fact is that for all the noise made here and in other places Democrats are largely happy with their choices and ready to back the winner.  The "many" you speak are actually just a few and I suspect even a few of them will come around when it comes down to Giuliani or Hillary in the White House.

With Rudy we stay in Iraq and go into Iran.  With Hillary we get out of Iraq and stay out of Iran.  With Nader all you get is a wasted vote for a senile nose picker.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Many on the left?

The war will be the difference. Leaving 70,000 troops in Iraq will not end the war.

by BDM 2007-09-07 12:08PM | 0 recs
Leaving a Republican in the White House

... Won't do it either

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: A third party in '08 would probably hurt R's

It depends on who the third party candidate is.

The Perot Third Party Candidacy was sucessful because Conservative in 1992 were mad at Bush Sr. because of Taxes. and Budget Deficits.

The Nader Third Party Candidates were angry at Bill Clinton for supporting Welfare Reform Bill

Conservatives are more angry at Republican Presidential Candidates- Guiliani and McCain on Immigration. I anticipate a Buchanansque Third party candidate.

by nkpolitics 2007-09-07 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: A third party in '08 would probably hurt R's

Conservative's are more angry at the GOP than Liberals are angry with the Democrats.

Republican politicians are involved in sex scandals-Not supporting poligamy,crossdressing. Guiliani,Romney,Thompson pissing off the Religious Right Base.

Republican politicians supporting Amnesty for Illegal Alliens- McCain- pissing off the White Nationalist Base.

Republican politician being Big Government Spenders

by nkpolitics 2007-09-07 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Honestly the mental picture of Hillary with balls is troubling.

by DoIT 2007-09-07 05:12AM | 0 recs
Agreed, Doit. She doesn't have balls.

She's just a strong woman.

by bookgrl 2007-09-07 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

I have to agree.  She has guts and spunk, and I know she'll fight for us (IMHO more than the other 2 candidates) but the ballz reminds me too much of those hanging brass balls that one sees attached to the back of trucks sometimes (usually driven by a redneck.)  Not sure if its a Florida thing, though.  

by georgep 2007-09-07 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

It's as if a woman cannot be considered strong without some reference to male genitalia. This will all change once she is elected and people have the opportunity to see strong women in a whole new light.

by DoIT 2007-09-07 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

No, I only meant it in response to the idea that only "manly men" can lead the counrty.  I was going for irony, the idea that the most courage, as represented by male genetalia, was harbored by a woman.

by Todd Bennett 2007-09-07 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: southern, not florida...

you're not that far from redneck country...

by bored now 2007-09-07 07:15AM | 0 recs
"poverty of argument"?

One thing you have to say about Edwards supporters, they have written many diaries giving many reasons for supporting their candidate. It's farcical to claim that we say electability is Edwards' only advantage over Hillary.

If I could appoint the next president myself and could only choose among currently declared candidates in our field, Hillary wouldn't even be in my top three choices.

Even setting aside any concerns about her electability (of which I have many), I don't have confidence that she would be anything more than a competent president. She would keep at least 60,000 troops in Iraq and wouldn't seriously challenge corporate influence on US domestic policies. We can do much better given the strength of our field.

by desmoinesdem 2007-09-07 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: "poverty of argument"?

Ok, I assume your other top three are Kucinich and Gravel.  Seriously, you are not a very objective observer.  You loath Hillary.

It's commonly known that these 3 are very close on the issues.  

by bookgrl 2007-09-07 05:22AM | 0 recs
but who would use the office of the presidency

to push for the change we need?

If I am just appointing the president and able to choose anyone from our current field, my preferences in order would be Edwards, Dodd, Obama, Richardson, Biden, Clinton. I simply don't have any confidence in Hillary to push for progressive change, especially on the environment. Further, I think we risk serious setbacks on Congressional elections with her in the White House.

Richardson is just as bad as Hillary in terms of corporate-friendly economic policies, but he is better on the environment and on Iraq.

It would be a tougher call for me between Biden and Hillary, but Biden gets the edge because of his longstanding support for public financing of elections. We know that the Clintons are all about doing whatever it takes to keep the big-money donors happy and keep that system going.

Now if we are talking only about electability, you could persuade me that Hillary has a better chance than some I might prefer to her. But I still think Edwards does better for Democrats at all levels than she does.

by desmoinesdem 2007-09-07 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: "poverty of argument"?

Most of the issues posts have been a while back now.  The vast majority of Edwards' supporter posts are now about "electability" and smearing Clinton (mostly with right-wing memes.)  

by georgep 2007-09-07 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: "poverty of argument"?

"and smearing Clinton (mostly with right-wing memes."


by IsThisOverYet 2007-09-07 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: "poverty of argument"?

Well, and here we have a diarist who calls Edwards a "bit of a bitch," so that should even up the score somewhat.

by Steve M 2007-09-07 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: "poverty of argument"?

True that.  I did not care for those descriptions.  

by georgep 2007-09-07 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: "poverty of argument"?

The vast majority of Edwards' supporter posts are now about "electability" and smearing Clinton (mostly with right-wing memes.)  

The vast majority of Edwards' supporter posts smear our former first lady and Senator from NY, with right wing memes? What is up with that?

Can't you phrase your flames just a tad more Dem friendly? You really need to be put on a leash.

by misscee 2007-09-07 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: "poverty of argument"?

I acknowledged that many previous diaries were about issues.  Recently, however, we have seen a lot of diaries that either deal with "electability" exclusively (Tarheel, bruh, OE, etc.) or are direct smear attacks on Clinton a la "Do we really want this stuff in the White House" (i.e. rssai, shirley temple, etc.)

There are many awesome Edwards diarists, the frontpagers, Trond, Steve M, etc.  We just have seen a ton of that other stuff as of late, much more than issues diaries.  Hope it is just a temporary phenomenon, because Edwards has indeed a lot to talk about when it comes to issues, and these other types of diaries take away from that.  

by georgep 2007-09-07 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: "poverty of argument"?

In a flame war, there isn't a lot of difference between the two sides.

From my experience, the best way to deal with right wing "memers" is to call them out one-by-one, on the basis of their arguments. However, if you don't start ignoring them at some point in time, you are simply fanning the flames and/or feeding the trolls. When their comments/diaries don't get any traction, they'll go away.

Go after them and kick their sorry a$$es out of here!

by misscee 2007-09-07 08:34AM | 0 recs
Most pro-Edwards diaries are about issues

or an event - I just went back over those posted over the past 2 days and out of about 13-14 (I lost the exact count), 3 were on electibility or highlighted Clinton. This is neither a "vast majority" or even a simple one, this is a vast MINORITY.

So, georgep, you may be handy with polls but simple counting, not so much.

Note: I only looked at diaries where I know that the author is a declared Edwards supporter.

by edgery 2007-09-07 11:21PM | 0 recs

She would keep at least 60,000 troops in Iraq

Please provide a citation where anyone from the Clinton campaign has said that.

by hwc 2007-09-07 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

good post!

by BigBoyBlue 2007-09-07 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

And someone once told me Todd Bennett was an Obama supporter... that's quite obvious, right?

by Vox Populi 2007-09-07 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

I think he switched back, but without announcing it here.  

by georgep 2007-09-07 06:05AM | 0 recs

It's time for her & Bill to move along and let the democratic party grow. (cosbo)

Okay so let me get this straight.  Hillary is leading by huge margins in all state polls except Iowa where she is tied with Obama and Edwards.  Hillary is leading in every single national poll by unfathomable margins.  Bill is THE most popular and respected politician on Planet Earth.  And YOU say it's time for them to "move along".  

You, Cosbo, are a joke.  A joke I tell you.

by Regan 2007-09-07 06:31AM | 0 recs
With the first votes / caucuses still

almost 5 months away, the "huge" margins may or may not hold and I'd need to see some links to believe the "all state polls" part. In H2H polls, she certainly isn't showing the same strength.

Bill is certainly a very personable and popular ex-President but "on Planet Earth" might be a bit of an exaggeration, especially among those hurt by NAFTA and the many trade agreements modeled after it. (Nostalgia means remembering the good and forgetting the bad.)

And Cosbo isn't the only one who thinks it's time for a change, a transformational change in what kind of leader we have and what kinds of policies we need to deal with the multitude of problems BushCo will leave behind.

by edgery 2007-09-07 10:34PM | 0 recs
"Responding" to attacks?

Don't you mean manufacturing them?

Anyone so much as mentions her name anymore, and it's "Obama attacked me!" "The Pentagon attacked me!"
"The White House attacked me!" "Karl Rove attacked me!" "George Bush attacked me!" "Help me, everyone!
Send money! I'm being attacked!"

Certainly, Hillary Clinton is "masterful" at playing the victim card -- not least, because she knows that the press
would eat for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and dessert any male candidate who was such a pathological whiner.

Balls? Please. Hillary Clinton is working those extra X chromosomes for all they're worth.

by horizonr 2007-09-07 06:40AM | 0 recs
hillary's great in front of cameras...

but she's been a shrinking violet when there are republicans in the room.  part of this is undoubtedly senate decorum, but the fact is that even before she was in the senate, she spent a lot of time schmoozing republicans.  the whole "hillary has the guts to stand up against republicans" meme is wishful thinking.  people see what they want to see.

when the chips were down, and she was made aware of the immoral nature of the vote she cast, she still couldn't stand up against bush and his reckless iraqi adventure.  she defended it.  she'd "seen" the intelligence (this may have been an exaggeration on her part at the time).  guts are easier to embody when you are in front of an admiring crowd.

not that i think people are interested in the truth, but hillary's got a reputation for being an accomodationist.  she's not like ted kennedy, who will negotiate toughly with republicans, in the effort to move the ball along.  she doesn't appear to have a moral compass to those on the other side.  ted kennedy has redlines, everyone knows (who negotiates with him) what they are.  who knows with hillary?

in the end, a much better image of hillary is her in her pink dress.  when confronted, she reframes, because she's been such a failure at striking back.  what happened when hillary tried to speak out against bush's commutation of libby's sentence?  she got smacked down.

we should expect to see more of that.  i understand that an objective accessment of hillary is not what is desired...

by bored now 2007-09-07 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: hillary's great in front of cameras...

when confronted, she reframes, because she's been such a failure at striking back.

Right. And the post-debate pundits have almost invariably scored this slipperiness as a "win."

But debating is not governing. And slipperiness is not leadership.


by horizonr 2007-09-07 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: hillary's great in front of cameras...

but she's been a shrinking violet when there are republicans in the room.

You mean like this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= -2727746258852322223&q=hillary+clint on+rumsfeld&total=53&start=0& ;num=10&so=0&type=search&pli ndex=2

by hwc 2007-09-07 09:22AM | 0 recs
i liked that clip...

doesn't help my point, although i still stand by it.  i'd wish she would have confronted rumsfeld a lot earlier, though.  i was happy when she finally came out against the war...

by bored now 2007-09-07 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

you are delusional if you think that Hillary will not have a negative effect on down-ballot races in both politically-competitive and republican areas of the country.

Unless, of course, you foresee every Democrat being impassioned to vote for Hillary and most Republicans staying home and not voting.

by d 2007-09-07 06:56AM | 0 recs
Check the facts

Look at the studies.

Coattails have almost totally vanished from the scene.  The only sign that coattails exist today are in some (not all) races with no incumbant, where very little is known about either candidate.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Check the facts

I'm very interested in the citations to those studies.  I would love to read them.  I am not a professional political person so these things do not automatically cross my desk.  Thanks.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-09-07 07:12AM | 0 recs
me, too...

by bored now 2007-09-07 07:23AM | 0 recs
i've missed those studies...

and i keep up with the lit.

you seem to mistake over reliance by the media on the concept of coattails with the absence of coattails.  i'm not sure why...

by bored now 2007-09-07 07:16AM | 0 recs
Go back to '06 or '04

Show me in '06 whether a Gov. or Senate candidate produced unexpected gains down the ticket in his or her state.

Show me in '04 where Kerry in a blue state, or Bush in a red state produced unexpected gains down the ticket.

Show me some coattails.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Go back to '06 or '04

Kansas 2006:

Kathleen Sebelius Governor (D), 59% incumbent governor

Paul Morrison (D) 59%, defeated incumbant attorney general

Nancy Boyda (D KS-02), 51%, defeated incumbant congressman Jim Ryun,

Dennis Moore (D KS-03), 56% +or-, incumbant congressman.  Moore has won in the past with only 50-51%.

Who is at the top of the ticket does affect down-ballot races. It is a motivation factor.  

Generally people are not motivated to vote for down-ballot races.  If they do not like who their party chooses for the top race, they are much less likely to show up to vote.  If they really don't like who the other party has chosen for the top race, they are much more likely to show up to vote against that person.

Hillary would really have to convince many unconvinced Democrats that she is really great or completely demonize the republican candidate to avoid down-ballot consequences in competitive areas.  It would a very ugly election.

by d 2007-09-07 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Go back to '06 or '04

The problem with your last sentence is that Clinton barely has left any Democrats "unconvinced".  Clearly not remotely to the extent that Democrats are unsure about Edwards and Obama at this point.  The data points offered up by Rasmussen just today at the strong confidence level expressed by Democrats in regards to Clinton's ability to win in Nov. 2008 when compared to Democrats' confidence for Obama and Edwards to win in Nov. 2008 is just one more of many pointers in that direction.

by georgep 2007-09-07 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Go back to '06 or '04

Democrats being convinced that Hillary can win is different than them being convinced that they think she is the best candidate and that they will be supermotivated to get out and vote for her.

As a Democrat, I personally am convinced she could win the race.  But I am not convinced that she will not have negative down-ballot effects.

I think people are convinced she can win the race.  I do not beleive that they are convinced that she should be President.

by d 2007-09-07 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Go back to '06 or '04

The thing is that Democrats are MORE convinced that Clinton can win in Nov. 2008 than is the case for Obama or Edwars.  Not just that, we are seeing favorable/unfavorables in absolutely great shape for Clinton, not so for the oters.

Among Democrats, Clinton is viewed favorably by 81% and unfavorably by 17%. Edwards gets positive reviews from 75% while 19% say the opposite. Obama is viewed favorably by 66% of those in his party, unfavorably by 28%.

Forty-four percent (44%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Clinton while 31% say the same about Obama. Just 22% have a Very Favorable opinion of Edwards.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_ poll__1

Basically, you have the makings of a path to the nomination here:

Against Obama Clinton is way ahead in favorable/unfavorable rankings.  Obama's unfavorables amongst Democrats have gone a bit too high for comfort, with almost a third of Democratic voters now viewing Obama unfavorably.   The NET difference of fav./unfav. between Clinton and Obama is a full 26%.   Edwards does somewhat better on fav./unfav. ratings, but as you can see from the same quote, Clinton is viewed VERY favorably by 44% of Democrats, while only 22% of Democrats have the same type of enthusiasm for Edwards.  

Clinton is clearly viewed with much more enthusiasm by Democrats than the other 2 candidates.  It is not even close.  With the banter on the blogs looking somewhat differently that reality is not easy to understand/make out for some.

by georgep 2007-09-07 10:18AM | 0 recs
obama's unfavorables are disproportionately...

due to hillary supporters.  i personally question whether they have an unfavorable view of obama or just an unfavorable view of him challenging her -- and putting together the infrastructure to mount a challenge...

by bored now 2007-09-07 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Go back to '06 or '04

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Democrats will sit out the 2008 election because they aren't energized by the Presidential race?

That's complete nonsense. Every bit of evidence suggests that Democrats are highly energized, actively interested, and unusually ethusiastic about their candidates and prospects for victory in November 2008.

by hwc 2007-09-07 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Go back to '06 or '04

I will admit your comment is supported by national polling.

But I do think that Hillary Clinton will have a problem with both Democratic and Republican turnout.  This will not manifest itself in Democratic strongholds, but in competitive down-ballot races.

by d 2007-09-07 09:57AM | 0 recs
You give one example - one state

It is a good example.  Sebelius is popular.  

While I wouldn't say she had no impact, I would point out a few others things.  

First there was a turning of the tide in KS prior to the election.  6 or 7 Republicans jumped ship and swithced our side.  I think Morrison was one of the former Republicans.

Secondly, there was the lingering issue in Kansas of whether the rigthwing had gone to far (religion / creationism and the education flap).  The switching of parties of was partiall a result of that.  Many moderate folks in Kansas were tiring of the rights dominance of the GOP in Kansas.

Lastly, there was a national trend in '06 that say incumbant Republicans lost from NY to NC to KS to AZ.  I think the national movement away from the GOP because of the war, corruption, and the overreach of the right has to play into this.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 09:31AM | 0 recs

I give you Michigan.

Jenny has been popular.  She has been elected by solid margains.  Gore and Kerry carried it.  Yet 8 or its 11 House Members are Republicans.

Not coattails -- the top of the ticket hasn't effected down ticket.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-07 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Not sure if I want to jump into your party... Here's some finding from today's Rassmussen tracking...

Three-out-of-four Democrats (75%) believe that if Clinton wins the nomination, she is at least somewhat likely to win the White House in 2008. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Democrats say the same about Edwards and 69% think Obama is at least somewhat likely to win if nominated. However, there is a higher degree of confidence in Clinton than other candidates. Forty-one percent (41%) of Democrats say that Clinton is Very Likely to win the White House if nominated. Just 26% say the same about Obama and 24% have that confidence in Edwards.

She has guts and spunk, that's why she's winning...

BTW, today's tracking #s

Clinton 45
Obama 23
Edwards 13

by areyouready 2007-09-07 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

45 - 13 - 23 = 9!

by areyouready 2007-09-07 07:07AM | 0 recs
Do you know if it has

always been the case with Ras. that Hillary would have more support than Obama and Edwards combined?

by bookgrl 2007-09-07 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you know if it has

It has been a more recent phenomenon that Clinton gets as much or more support than both Edwards and Obama combined in the national polls.  Rarely do we see a poll that does not give Clinton more support than both Edwards and Obama combined.  

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html#polls

by georgep 2007-09-07 07:28AM | 0 recs
Well, I find that quite positive for

Hillary if it has become the case but wasn't always the case.

by bookgrl 2007-09-07 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

"Forty-one percent (41%) of Democrats say that Clinton is Very Likely to win the White House if nominated. Just 26% say the same about Obama and 24% have that confidence in Edwards."

Very likely = VERY CONFIDENT.

This is cleary the ultimate in electability.  41% of Democrats are convinced that Clinton would be virtually guaranteed to win in Nov. 2008 if she is nominated.  There is a huge confidence gap between her and Obama/Edwards on that.   What that tells us is that Democrats see Clinton as the most electable of the three candidates, by a very large margin.    So, IF electability plays a deciding role for the nomination, it looks pretty obvious that Clinton would be the chief beneficiary of making "electability in November 2008" one of the major deciding factors.  

by georgep 2007-09-07 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Have the votes been counted yet

by BDM 2007-09-07 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Well Damn, how can anyone doubt that Hillary is the strongest of the three.  She has had to prove (fight the netroots) who are too scared about her "electibility" because she is supposedly too "polarizing".  She has had to fight/reassure the state Democratic Machines, because they like to make anonymous and whiny quotes about electability, even though their state polls tell them that she is the one the Democratic voters want.  In addition, she's had to continue to bitch-slap the Repubs, because one candidate is reaching out for bipartisan harmony, and the other is too busy crusading against evil lobbyists to do it.  She does all this while successfully keeping her supporters and converting others with her campaign message.  What other campaign has had to do these things.  None.  I certainly hope she is the nominee, because when she turns that laser focus on the Repubs, they won't know what hit 'em.

by Kingstongirl 2007-09-07 07:06AM | 0 recs
i can't think of a time when she's beaten them...

can you?

by bored now 2007-09-07 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

Well, sort of on-topic, http://www.politicalwire.com  just alerted us to a new product that has come out:  The Hillary nutcracker.  I guess the general bodily region sort of qualifies it for an inclusion in this diary.  :-)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UB0 004/104-4996408-6535912?ie=UTF8&tag= youwonnowwhat&linkCode=xm2&camp= 1789&creativeASIN=B000UB0004

by georgep 2007-09-07 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

love it. Made in U.S.A? lol.

by areyouready 2007-09-07 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

That is about the most hilarious thing I have seen in months, if not years.

I can barely type I am laughing so hard.  Thanks much!

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-09-07 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

That would make a fun stocking stuffer for my GOP in-laws.  Thanks for sharing.

by bookgrl 2007-09-07 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls and Coattails

my favorite quote was given by someone awhile ago about the nominee being able to eat GOP children... I def think Hillary would be best at castrating the GOP, eating their children, and dragging them through the mud.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-07 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Has Balls-?

If Hillary has balls doesn't that make her Margaret Thatcher?

by DerekLarsson 2007-09-07 09:22AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads