Campaigns/Elections

Why Does America (Including Democrats) Hate Hillary Clinton?

|

Wash Times col Don Lambro digs into a March poll about Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and focuses on the negative. A Zogby poll of likely voters found 46 percent (including 18 percent of Dems) saying they'd never vote for Clinton. Fifty-one percent of men and 42 percent of women gave her the absolute thumbs down too. Her Dem rivals–notably Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) have their problems too, but nothing like the former First Lady's.

So why the negativity?

Two major factors are in play here. One is the battle between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton and the other is the intensity of opposition to Mrs. Clinton among her party's antiwar voters. Recent surveys show Mr. Obama closing fast on Mrs. Clinton in the national polls. He trails her by a scant 31 percent to 34 percent in the ARG poll. But nominations are won in state-by-state contests where delegates can be apportioned under different formulas.

And yet–and this can't be underscored enough–she is the Dem leader, so maybe the nay votes aren't that important.

One other thing: Lambro's col cites poll data showing Rudy Giuliani kicking GOP ass, and Clinton's too (by 6 percentage points). My random thoughts, a 1,000 years out from the election: If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, the smart money is on her. She's shown she can go the campaign distance in a way that he has not.

More here.

NEXT: "Free State," Get It?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why Does America (Including Democrats) Hate Hillary Clinton?

    That must be one of them, what they call, rhetorical questions.

  2. Think he’ll push her in front of the train?

    Why Does America (Including Democrats) Hate Hillary Clinton?

    Well, she’s in my top ten, definitely, but not at the top of the list.

    I don’t think America hates Hillary nearly as much as some of us wish it did. I’ve resigned myself to 8 fargin’ years of her mug on the nightly news.

  3. For me it’s very simple: when I hear her voice I want to jam knitting needles into my ears.

  4. Love that picture.

    I’ll just never understand the thought process that thinks Hillary would be a good candidate to run in a national campaign. I just don’t believe, in her case, name recognition will translate into electability. Whatever warm feelings folks may have for the Clinton name, I just don’t see extending it past her husband.

  5. She only needs 51%, folks.

    Think he negatives are any higher than Bush in 2004?

  6. If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, the smart money is on her.

    I’ll take Rudy.

  7. I wonder if anyone will trot out the trite, facile explanation that people don’t like Hillary because she’s a strong woman.

  8. Americans don’t like Hilary because they’re frightened by strong women.

  9. “Why Does America (Including Democrats) Hate Hillary Clinton?”

    Because electing a president based on whom you would most like to have a beer with is such a brilliant way to choose a leader.

  10. I know a lot of left wing whackos, and they all hate Hillary. Oddly, even worse than I do. I really don’t know why, perhaps the war vote. Anyway, I really don’t think she has a chance.

    As I said yesterday, if she gets nominated, the Dems will lose an otherwise gimme election.

  11. The candidate must be perceived to be sincere to win the general election. Anyone who perceives Rodham-Clinton as sincere has a screw loose. Rudy cleans her clock and my mother-in-law cuts me a thousand dollar check.

  12. “However, Mr. Zogby’s poll also showed 19 percent of the Democrats said they could never vote for Mr. Obama, her closest rival for the nomination, or for Mr. Edwards, both of whom are in the top tier.”

    How does the fact that Edwards and Obama each have a higher “would never vote for” number than Clinton demonstrate that Hillary has a much greater problem then they do?

  13. How does the fact that Edwards and Obama each have a higher “would never vote for” number than Clinton demonstrate that Hillary has a much greater problem then they do?

    Probably because the entire world isn’t comprised of Democrats, which is what the number you are quoting refers to.

  14. From TFA:

    “If there’s 46 percent who say never, then there are the rest of the voters who can be drawn from. But when I see 33 percent who say they could never vote for Barack Obama or John Edwards, and even Al Gore has less than that, then there is a problem with her and her campaign,” he said.

    I read it because you never do.

  15. jf,

    RTFA. The author goes on and on about how dangerously high Clinton’s opposition is among Democrats, and why her 18% “would never vote for” number among her base makes it impossible for her to win.

  16. jf,

    ” The 18 percent figure surprised Mr. Zogby. “That is nearly 1 in 5 Democrats. The parties are at parity, which means she’s going to need 85 percent support among Democrats,” he said. Losing 18 percent of the Democrats means she would fall short of the minimum support needed to clinch the presidency.
    One Democratic pollster, Ed Sarpolus of Michigan’s EPIC-MRA poll, said, “She’s in a trouble zone. Typically, when a candidate loses more than 12 percent of the base, they tend to lose,” he continued. “If it was 12 percent, I wouldn’t be overly concerned. If it gets around 15 percent, there are enough Democrats who would hold their noses, cover their eyes and vote for Hillary on Election Day.” But beyond that number, should it continue to hold up, “it is very difficult to win,” he said.
    However, Mr. Zogby’s poll also showed 19 percent of the Democrats said they could never vote for Mr. Obama, her closest rival for the nomination, or for Mr. Edwards, both of whom are in the top tier.”

    Thhhpppttttt.

  17. She’s shown she can go the campaign distance in a way that he has not.

    How so? She won two Dem Senate races against second-tier opposition in a hard-blue state.

  18. Hard blue? She replaced a Republican!

    Rick Lazio was the GOP golden boy before that race. She was not Ted Kennedy up against some Republican sewer commissioner with no money.

  19. It is said that the job of every president is to burnish the reputation of his (her) predecessor…….

    She is the right woman, at the right time…..to make George Bush……look like a statesman!

    And thats just sad!!

  20. She replaced a Republican!

    I thought she replaced Moynihan. To be honest, I’m not up on my New York politics, though.

  21. I wonder if anyone will trot out the trite, facile explanation that people don’t like Hillary because she’s a strong woman.

    Or perhaps it’s the obvious explanation?

  22. As a probable Dem voter I have lots of reservations about HRC, but my show stopper is this – In a nation of 300 million, do we really have to pass the Presidency back and forth between two families for another 4-8 years? Twenty years of Bushton/Clintush is enough.

  23. Lasio was a pretty boy who no one in NY took seriously. I think Hillary was initially elected because her husband was going through a partisan impeachement and NY wanted to poke a stick in the Republican’s eyes.

    That said, I do think there are a lot of people who will not vote for ANYONE who has a last name of Clinton or Bush. If it’s Hillary versus Jeb, I think the third party candidates will get a lot of votes, maybe pull an upset.

  24. joe,

    NY state is hard blue in that the senate election is always the Democrats’ to lose. The fact that her predecessor was Republican doesn’t undermine the blueness of NY any more so than the fact that Jim Webb won in Virginia undermines the deep redness of Virginia. She was a solid Democrat candidate in a solid Democrat state. All she had to do was avoid saying something stupid and the election was hers.

  25. Joe,

    Also, Mass. is pretty darned blue despite the fact that Romney was gov.

  26. RTFA. The author goes on and on about how dangerously high Clinton’s opposition is among Democrats, and why her 18% “would never vote for” number among her base makes it impossible for her to win.

    The point of the article is that her high number of likely voters who would never vote for her, which is way higher than the same numbers for Obama and Edwards, mean that she needs better numbers among Democrats (nearly 85% IIRC) in order to win the general election.

    Now, you take back that raspberry.

  27. Cab,

    You could be right, but I thought she replaced D’Amato.

    Either way, Republicans were a serious political force in New York until very recently. There were a lot of Long Island Republicans. IIRC, Guiliani was ahead of her in the polls when he dropped out of the 2000 race.

  28. Rimfax, kohlrabi,

    Al D’Amato repeatedly won one of New York’s senate seats, there are a number of Republican Congressmen, and most convincingly, Republicans occasionally win control of the state legislature – quite unlike Massachusetts.

    If you go back and look at how Clinton won her senate seat, you will find a lot of stories about her going to upstate New York – solid Repubilcan country – to win over Republicans. Until perhaps 2004, statewide offices in New York were not gimmees for the Democrats.

  29. The most interesting thing about Hillary as a politician is that liberals are convinced that she’s a conservative disguised as a liberal and conservatives think that she’s a liberal who tries to portray herself as a conservative.

    You gotta give her credit for pulling that off.

  30. Hugo Chavez in a pants-suit.

  31. Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. Nothing short of a malignant biopsy or felony conviction can stop that now. Whether she can be elected, depends on who the Republicans run. I think Rudy can take her, but any Rep. will be starting in a comparable hole.

  32. Hugo Chavez in a pants-suit.

    More like GWB in a pant suit.

    I think that’s why so many lefties actually hate her.

  33. I’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton based on the issues.

    I can say, right now, that I’ll never vote for Rudy Guiliani, based on the issues, but mostly because I live in Texas, which will almost certainly give its electorial votes to the Republican candidate. That means it won’t cost me anything to vote Libertarian.

    If I lived in Florida, and the choice was Clinton or Guiliani, and my vote could make the difference, election day might be the “never” when I’d barf and vote Republican even though Guiliani was the candidate.

    Just saying that “never” is further away in Spring 2007 than in Fall 2008.

    All of this says at this juncture that, despite the political woes of war and scandal Republicans have on their plate, the party is still very much alive and kicking in the 2008 race for the presidency.

    Considering how badly the Republicans have screwed up, the thought that they’re still in the race with the only credible opposition is really, really depressing.

  34. I will get clubbed for this, but I think Romney or Rudy would take her in a general election.

  35. shecky | March 27, 2007, 9:32am | #
    Love that picture.

    It’s a still from the new Broadway musical version of The Matrix. The Merovingian (Rudy) and Agent Smith (Hillary) are watching Neo (McCain) about to get hit by the train.

  36. “I wonder if anyone will trot out the trite, facile explanation that people don’t like Hillary because she’s a strong woman.”

    Ain’t Occam’s razor a bitch?

    I hate her for other reasons, but most of the “rightwing whackos” (pace Cab) I know fit into the above category.

  37. What’s to like? She’s where she is because of someone else’s success–not hers. Sound familiar? Like a recent president?

    She’s also rather inept in the political gamesmanship that her husband was so skilled at, and she has a tendency to rub people the wrong way. This has less to do with her “strong woman” qualities than with her personality. Again, not unlike a certain person living in a white house in DC. And yes, he’s a strong woman, too.

    She’s a friggin’ lawyer and a Senator. Americans hate lawyers and Senators. We also tend to hate New Yorkers. And “New Yorkers”.

    She’s got a pretty strong socialist streak and does not have a great civil liberties record. There’s also reason to believe that she is at least somewhat corrupt. Many Americans are also creeped out by her weird relationship with Bill. What’s that all about, anyway? If she’d slug him on national TV, she might have a chance in this election.

    She’s not hot. Americans demand hotness from our female presidents.

    She will not be the nominee, because she’s got too much baggage and because even we stupid Americans can figure that we need someone from a family with a name we haven’t heard in a while. Like Russell.

    I have spoken.

  38. Six, Pinkie, & View, what is this? A Womyn’s Study Group?

    Americans don’t like Hillary because she is fundamentally unlikeable, she’s tainted by real scandal from her days as an attorney, and she tried to foist National Health Care on us when she was co-president.

    Aside from that, I don’t think she’s nearly as unpopular as you do. Then again I live in a state that elected both Feinstein and Boxer. And Boxer makes Hillary look like a Sunday School teacher.

    Now, if Virginia Postrel was running…….

  39. “She only needs 51%, folks.”

    Have you done the math, Joe? If 46% say they will not vote for her under any circumstances, that means that she would have to carry nearly 95% of the remaining 52% in order to get 51% of the vote. The democrats are committing suicide if they nominater her.

  40. I have a friend who is having difficulty deciding between Obama and Clinton because she can’t decide which minority group needs the most social justice.

    seriously.

  41. I am one of those 18% Dems who would never vote for her.

    To me, she comes off as very disingenuous and always calculating. I couldn’t tell you what she believes about anything. Even when she is asked point blank questions she refuses to take any kind of stand.

    I also think she hasn’t done much to earn the kind of profile she has. If it wasn’t for her husband she would be nobody. And in her tenure in the Senate, what exactly has she done or proposed that would make her stand out? What has she stood up against or for that she deserves any kind of praise? She chose to run in Blue NY instead of maybe Arkansas or even Illinois because being a senator from NY gets you a lot more press, and hasn’t really had a real challenger (Lazio was a joke).

    It’s too bad that we didn’t see Giuliani and her go head to head for NY Senate.

  42. I saw a couple of polls that asked about 2nd choices, and if I remember correctly, most of the people who chose Obama as a first choice also chose Edwards as their 2nd choice. Most Edwards voters chose Obama as their second choice.

    I’m worried that neither one will drop out and give Hillary the nomination. I thought that with the Edwards’ cancer that John would have dropped out, but that didn’t happen.

    The worst case scenario in my book would be Giuliani v Clinton.

  43. guys, just fyi, nyc is not really a part of new york state culturally, so don’t get confused by that. al damato could have raped babies with burning american flags and still would have walked away with the election for most of the 80s and 90s. it was only when the republican machine on long island started to crash and burn that schumer – who is no doubt genetically part weasel – was able to worm his way in.

  44. She needs 51% of what, exactly, and to do what?

    51% isn’t even the “magic number” for a simple majority.

    With all the pedants who comment on this board, I’m the first one to catch it?

    You guys need to step it up.

  45. Chicago Tom,

    “If it wasn’t for her husband she would be nobody.”

    More like, if it wasn’t for her, her husband would be nobody. She was a brilliant young hotshot before she ever laid eyes on him. If they’d never met, she would have gone farther than him.

  46. “Hugh Akston | March 27, 2007, 11:33am | #
    I have a friend who is having difficulty deciding between Obama and Clinton because she can’t decide which minority group needs the most social justice.

    seriously.”

    *head explodes

  47. More like, if it wasn’t for her, her husband would be nobody. She was a brilliant young hotshot before she ever laid eyes on him. If they’d never met, she would have gone farther than him.

    Whatever joe. She has the charisma of a cardboard box. She might have been quite successful in a private career (she is quite driven and opportunistic), but as a politician, I doubt she would have gone too far on her own.

    Politically, Bill Clinton would have been alright without her and with someone else by his side. I wouldn’t say the same for her.

    And like i asked earlier, what has she this “hotshot” accomplished in her tenure as an elected official??

  48. Bill Bradley has a new book coming out; any chance he might get in the running?

  49. If they’d never met, she would have gone farther than him.

    joe,

    I dunno about that, at least as far as elected positions.
    I am not a Clinton hater. I find Slick Willie very likable. I never voted for him, but he didn’t particularly bother me as President and I did feel that he was unfairly persecuted by the Republicans. So, you know I’m not coming from a rabid “Clinton and his husband [sic] are baby-eating WHORES!” kind of a place.
    All that said, I really do not care for her. She bothers me. I know a lot of other people who feel the same way. Mind you, I would never be any more likely to vote for Bill than Hilary anyway due to both their politics, so my opinion of her personality is sort of moot.
    Just saying that without her husband, I don’t think she would be well liked enough to be electable. Probably she would be a power broker of sorts, because she does seem awfully savvy.

  50. Chicago Tom,

    I agree – she would likely have made her way as a lawyer or civil servant – and probably achieved a very high standing in either field.

    He, on the other hand, would have been the salesman of the year for eight years running at some company.

    “And like i asked earlier, what has she this “hotshot” accomplished in her tenure as an elected official??”

    Little high-profile stuff. She’s mostly kept her head down and been a freshman worker bee.

  51. … and claims to be a Yankees fan…

  52. Dan T. | March 27, 2007, 10:27am | #
    I wonder if anyone will trot out the trite, facile explanation that people don’t like Hillary because she’s a strong woman.

    Or perhaps it’s the obvious explanation?

    Classic Dan T. Now Dan, you owe me a hundred words on the relation of obvious to facile.

  53. most of the “rightwing whackos” (pace Cab) I know fit into the above category.

    Yeah, because everyone remembers that rightwing whackos hated Maggie Thatcher because she was a strong woman.

  54. “Most Edwards voters chose Obama as their second choice.”

    That suggests that if Edwards pulls out because of his wife’s health, Obama stands to benefit.

  55. MAGGIE, MAGGIE YOU C**T MAGGIE, MAGGIE YOU C**T MAGGIE, MAGGIE YOU C**T MAGGIE MAGGIE MAGGIE MAGGIE YOU F***ING C**T!

  56. He, on the other hand, would have been the salesman of the year for eight years running at some company.

    Doubtful. You can’t teach charisma, and Bill oozed it. There is a reason why he has been regarded as one of the best and most compelling public speakers in recent history. The man was a great orator even if you didn’t agree with what he was saying. He was likable.

    But whatever…if you want to believe he’d never be more than “top salesman”…that’s your right. But the reality is that if it wasn’t for her having the luxury of being first lady, she wouldn’t be considered a serious candidate, and add to the fact that she has done absolutely nothing of any significance in her tenure as the highest profile worker bee in the Senate, I think a belief that she doesn’t really deserve what she has is better founded than your alternate reality woulda, coulda, shouldas.

  57. “Yeah, because everyone remembers that rightwing whackos hated Maggie Thatcher because she was a strong woman.”

    Actually they never talk about her because none of them wanted to bang her. And after all, if a female pol is not doable, what’s the use?

  58. If they’d never met, she would have gone farther than him.

    [shrug]

    Which one is Simon, which is Garfunkel? Or Lewis and Martin, Abbot and Costello, Paul and John, or Bert and Ernie?

    In this case, the question falls to (1) which of the two had the more burning, blinding, all-consuming passion for political power at all costs and (2) which had more natural political gifts. I’d say the nod goes clearly to Bill on both counts and just about every time Hillary appears in public only reinforces my confidence regarding the latter.

  59. I think Jon Stewart said it best when he said that Hillary is the place where boners go to die. And God knows I need a boner to point me to my precinct polling place.

  60. That’s when they finally put you in the ground
    I’ll stand on your grave and tramp the dirt down

    (about Margaret Thatcher)

  61. Anyway, so the lefties in the UK hated Thatcher with a passion that matches the way the righties feel about Hilary. Are men in politics reviled to the same degree?

  62. “Doubtful. You can’t teach charisma, and Bill oozed it.”

    True enough, but traits like discipline and strategic thinking are required for political success as well. Bill didn’t exactly demonstrate innate gifts in these areas.

    “I think a belief that she doesn’t really deserve what she has…”

    Oh, see, I thought we were talking about her abilities, not what she “deserves.”

  63. DA,

    I think it’s more a case of each of them making the other better, rather than one or the other being along for the ride.


  64. Classic Dan T. Now Dan, you owe me a hundred words on the relation of obvious to facile.

    “Facile” in this context implies that the first impression that comes to mind is false while “obvious” implies that the first impression that comes to mind is correct.

  65. d’oh. sorry for double. forgot this one:

    hier

  66. joe, I didn’t say or imply that Hillary was just along for the ride, only that as between the two of them Bill was the far more likely to have had a successful national political career without Hillary than vice versa.

  67. DA,

    I don’t know, a Simon and Garfunkel reference certainly suggests that someone is along for the ride.

    My point is that neither of them would likely have had a national political career without the other.

  68. …a Simon and Garfunkel reference certainly suggests that someone is along for the ride.

    Hey!

  69. And it is a point about which I disagree with you, joe.

    BTW, a good case could be made for the notion that Simon would never have made it to the big time without the soaring lyricism of Garfunkel’s voice, and most people agree that, even acknowledging Simon’s immense song writing skills, he’s not as good without Garfunkel as he was with him.

    Anyway, I agree Hillary brings something of value to the team. But I think Bill would have found another Hillary much more easily than Hillary could have found another Bill.

  70. joe,

    I used to think Hillary was the “brains” of the outfit, but I think that no longer. My brief exposure to the ex-president during my fellowship coupled with what we’ve seen from both of them on the public stage leads me to the firm conclusion that Bill is the smart one. He’s also more charismatic and a fine public speaker.

    If you want to give her credit for giving his career more focus, I might agree to some extent. Still, everything that I know makes me think that he would have at least made it to the gubernatorial mansion, whether Hillary were around or not. Let’s not forget, too, that he probably never got into the White House without Perot’s campaign. There’s always luck somewhere in any success story, it seems. She also likely saved his butt in his many sexual escapades, which, of course, were Clinton’s Achilles’ heel.

  71. “Anyway, I agree Hillary brings something of value to the team. But I think Bill would have found another Hillary much more easily than Hillary could have found another Bill.”

    I think that sounds about right.

    Though I’ll point out that sweet voices can be found a lot easier than song writing talent, too.

  72. I don’t remember Rick Lazio being a golden boy of anything. He was a dickfor. What’s a dickfor? Rick Lazio’s political career. Everybody knew he didn’t have a chance, and Hillary walloped him.

  73. Though I’ll point out that sweet voices can be found a lot easier than song writing talent, too.

    What? Just stop by the Brill Building and pick up a couple of ditties.

  74. Oh, see, I thought we were talking about her abilities, not what she “deserves.”

    No joe, we were talking about whether or not Hillary would be where she is today if not for Bill. You agreed with the sentiment that she wouldn’t be a successful politician on her own. Hence, in my mind, she doesn’t “deserve” to be considered the front runner for the nomination to the Presidency in my mind.

    She has lots of abilities. But an effective, charimsatic, likable politician doesn’t seem to be among them.

  75. Though I’ll point out that sweet voices can be found a lot easier than song writing talent, too.

    Are you really implying that ex-Governor and ex-President Clinton is the Roger Daultry to Hillary’s Pete Townsend? Really?

  76. Only 20 months and counting…

  77. TWC @ 11:27 — You’re only saying that because you can’t give birth to new life.

  78. Lamar,

    You remember incorrectly. Lazio and Clinton were in a virtual tie until that famous debate where he waved the paper in her face.

    ChicagoTom,

    “You agreed with the sentiment that she wouldn’t be a successful politician on her own. Hence, in my mind, she doesn’t “deserve” to be considered the front runner for the nomination to the Presidency in my mind.” This logic rules out John Adams, Franklin Roosevelt, and who knows how many other Presidents who owed a great deal to their wives. I don’t find it compelling.

  79. I have another item to add to my list. If a Chicagoan–say, ChicagoTom–opposes a native daughter–say, Hillary Clinton–then there is no way in the Virgo Supercluster that said native daughter can win. I mean, they’d vote for a zombie if he came from Chicago.

  80. “Think he negatives are any higher than Bush in 2004?”

    No candidate for President that lost 18% of the voters from his own party has ever won according to the analysis of the Zogby poll that I read.

  81. Joe,

    I think Hillary led Lazio the entire race, though it may have been close at specific instances as you say. My point was more that Lazio wasn’t the golden child but the replacement child. Of course GOPers made him out to be even better than Giuliani, and in fact the greatest 4 term congressman in the history of the world, but that’s what they do. Golden child? Well…..you got the child part down. Alright, perhaps this is quibbling, and a NYC-centric view at that. Lazio always got his support from upstate suburbanites.

  82. “If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, the smart money is on her.”

    Yet the most recent poll I’ve seen shows him 6 points ahead of her.

  83. “How does the fact that Edwards and Obama each have a higher “would never vote for” number than Clinton demonstrate that Hillary has a much greater problem then they do?”

    That higher “would never vote for” for Edwards and Obama is among Democrats. Among all voters, Hillary has the most “would never vote fors”.

  84. I have no problems with a strong woman as leader of this country. That’s why I’m voting Xena for president in ’08.

  85. A strong showing while remaining sensitive, but all the while being tough and readu for action make Xena the leading candidate!

  86. This logic rules out John Adams, Franklin Roosevelt, and who knows how many other Presidents who owed a great deal to their wives. I don’t find it compelling

    I was responding to your ridiculous assertions that “if it wasn’t for her, her husband would be nobody”, when clearly it is the other way around.

    If you want to say that she was a more high profile and bigger asset first lady than say Laura Bush fine, but Hillary Clinton is no Eleanor Roosevelt.

    And I repeat…you have yet to point out anything tangible (other than her hotshotness) that she has accomplished during her tunure in public life. (Well she was vital in killing universal health care — maybe that’s what you mean??) So other than the fact that you seem to really like her — I don’t see any real merit in her.

  87. BREAKING NEWS!

    A SCANDAL threatens to derail her campaign!

    But it turns out that her rival was behind it all…

  88. Lamar,

    “Golden child” may have been a bit strong.

    The point I’m trying to make here is that Hillary did not simply walk into the Senate seat based on her party affiliation. It was a competetive race, because the NY GOP was still a force to be reckoned with in that election.

  89. Chicago Tom,

    She was chosen to be a staff attorney to the committee investigating Watergate, pretty much right out of law school. That ain’t peanuts – it’s the sort of thing that shows someone was on the escalator.

    BTW, I don’t like her very much. I’m just trying to keep the pool clear. It’s clouded with conventional wisdom.

  90. Joe,

    Granted, Lazio put up a better fight than anyone expected, and generally ran a smart campaign.

  91. Why can’t those of us who are liberals just simply detest HRC because she never says anything without it coming out of both sides of her mouth at the same time?

    This woman has triangulated every issue to death. HRC gives the impression that if a waiter were to ask her if she wanted a glass of water her answer would be:”I’ll have to take an opinion poll on that.”

    Feh.

  92. “If you go back and look at how Clinton won her senate seat, you will find a lot of stories about her going to upstate New York – solid Repubilcan country – to win over Republicans. Until perhaps 2004, statewide offices in New York were not gimmees for the Democrats.”

    The demographics have changed in upstate New York, even in 2000, to where the Republicans don’t have the Republican strength in upstate New York as they once had.

  93. Aw, geeze. Give me a break, grumpy realist! Most reasonable people see nothing wrong about agreeing with the majority. This is why you crazy liberals will never get more than a few percentage points of the vote. Until you figure that out, you’ll never be a significant force in mainstream politics. It’s not rocket science, guys.

  94. grumpy realist:

    and these same people want to have a beer with George W. Bush. Words only come out one side of his mouth, and he sure sticks to his guns. Some might say he never learns, or is stubborn.

    I get it that everybody hates Hillary. I just think it’s funny that it is because she is too calculated. We already got a cowboy shootin’ from the hip, podner. I would think a little calculation and analysis is a worthy venture at this point.

  95. “(Well she was vital in killing universal health care — maybe that’s what you mean??) So other than the fact that you seem to really like her — I don’t see any real merit in her.”

    She also singlehandedly led to the GOP takeover in 1994, which she will also lead to a GOP takeover in 2010 if she is elected in 2008.

  96. Lamar,

    How about someone with some principles, common sense, strategic vision, and management ability? Who has a name other than Clinton or Bush?

    And don’t credit her with savvy calculation skills. In the political arena, being seen as openly calculating is usually a bad thing. Remember Nixon? Bill did it much more adroitly, though his pandering to popular opinion was hardly opaque.

  97. Pro Libertate:

    I’d love to see somebody competent with a name other than Clinton or Bush. It ain’t the rookies (Obama, Edwards, Thompson), Romney seems like a pretty boy godbanger, McCain probably suffers from having made too many politically expedient decisions (like Clinton). There isn’t much left when the riff raff is taken out. Giuliani will no doubt show the world how sleazy he really is, Biden will make a comeback for the express purpose of saying something asinine to lose cred again. Newt might make a run, but he makes Giuliani look kind and considerate. I know he won’t run, but what’s your take on Bob Graham?

  98. RC Dean, nice touch with the Thatcher comment.

  99. I don’t think Clinton is less of a rookie than Edwards or Thompson, but I get your drift.

    Graham is hard to peg. He was definitely a moderate during his tenure in the Senate, but I thought he started to leave the reservation a bit during the last campaign. He actually might have been a strong candidate, given this weak field, and his resume is impressive–two-term governor of Florida and long-term Senator. He also has a fairly good background on national security stuff, which is usually the vulnerable spot with Democratic candidates.

    As for the current field, we sure are aiming for the LCD, aren’t we? At this rate, we’ll soon be voting for chimpanzees who have good sign language skills. Come to think of it, I might vote Great Ape. Hmmm. . . .

  100. Anyway, this whole debate become irrelevant if Gore announces.

  101. This woman has triangulated every issue to death. HRC gives the impression that if a waiter were to ask her if she wanted a glass of water her answer would be:”I’ll have to take an opinion poll on that.”

    Hehehe… I think her answer would be “Well that isn’t for me to decide. I just know that people who have a thirst should have that thirst quenched.

    I get it that everybody hates Hillary. I just think it’s funny that it is because she is too calculated.

    To me, the problem isn’t that she is calculated, it’s that she doesn’t calculate and them come to firm conclusions — or if she does, she doesn’t want to tell the public.

    As an example I look at her response when questioned about Gen. Pace. “Gays are immoral” question. She stated that it is for “others to conclude” Only after she got bad responses from Dem voters and the press did she clarify that she disagrees with Pace(Obama dodged in a similar fashion).

    WHen asked about her Iraq war vote….she won’t admit that she made a mistake in casting her vote…its that Bush misled her. (At least Edwards had the guts to say it was his vote and he regrets it and thinks it was a mistake)

    I really don’t know where she truly stands on anything or if she even believes in anything other than her belief that she wants to be president.

  102. Can’t we just get Simon Cowell to pick the next President?

  103. I agree with joe. I’m not sure one of the non-hyped candidates won’t rise above the field before it’s all said and done, but I do think that Gore would be much, much more likely to win the nomination than Senator Clinton. And he’d have at least a decent chance at the whole shebang, depending on what idiot the GOP nominates.

  104. It ain’t the rookies (Obama, Edwards, Thompson)

    Edwards was the VP nominee in ’04 and the ticket came pretty close to winning …I think takes him out of the rookie camp, no?

  105. People vote all the time for people they said they’d “never” vote for.

  106. I’m not sure one of the non-hyped candidates won’t rise above the field before it’s all said and done, but I do think that Gore would be much, much more likely to win the nomination than Senator Clinton.

    Personally, I don’t think Gore will run.

    Having said that, there really is no reason for him to not wait to declare and let the candidates kill each other. The amount of goodwill and positive press he has been getting has been quite amazing. His name recognition is at an all time high, and donors would be more than happy to throw money at him.

  107. Interesting. I thought her response to the General Pace this was appropriate. The “morality” of homosexuality is for each person to decide. Given that there is a great divergence of beliefs plus Constitutional considerations, there is a difference between each person’s moral conclusion and carrying out their duty as a politician or military officer. Show me where Pace goes on a mission from God to expurgate gays from the military, then I’ll change my tune, i.e., flip flop. Until then, it just seems like the General doesn’t like gays, and Hillary says that’s his right.

    People get on Hillary’s case for her positioning on the war. At a minimum, even crediting her story fully, she should apologize for buying into George W. Bush’s neocon bullshit. I think she voted for the war just to seem like a hawk for a day. Do I believe Edwards would have voted against the war if given another shot with the same information and climate? No way.

  108. ChicagoTom,

    I’d say that Dan Quayle is still a rookie by my standards. Edwards is a sophomore, not a freshman, but that doesn’t make him ready for the senior prom. Didn’t we learn our lesson when we elected President Bush Lite?

  109. I thought her response to the General Pace this was appropriate. The “morality” of homosexuality is for each person to decide.

    Lamar,

    If it was merely a policy question I would agree with you, but the question she was asked was “do you agree with Pace that homosexuality is immoral?” — that is a very straight forward question about her beliefs, not about her policy preferences. She doesn’t in fact believe that it is immoral (she later released a statement saying “I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple”) so why wouldn’t she just say so to begin with? Even John Warner was able to say when asked that he “respectfully but strongly” disagreed that homosexuality was immoral.

    What Clinton and Obama did was dodge the question that was posed. The question was what do they personally believe about the morality of homosexuality. And I think it’s a fair question that deserves an honest response. Especially when you are looking for support /donations from gay rights groups.

  110. Edwards is a sophomore, not a freshman, but that doesn’t make him ready for the senior prom

    I guess I see him as ready as anyone else in the field of those who are running on the Dem side.

    And, IMHO, he has been one of the more candid candidates out there. (Biden has been pretty candid as well I suppose)

    As someone who really didn’t like Edwards the first time around and even early on when he has announced, he has impressed me more than any other Dem in the field

  111. I don’t blame Hillary and Obama at all for their responses to Pace’s comment. The issue of gay people serving in the military is, first and foremost, about the security of our country and our military readiness. They have nothing to gain from allowing that debate to turn into a discussion of whether gay people are icky.

    Lamar wrote, “I think she voted for the war just to seem like a hawk for a day.”

    I don’t. I think she was genuine when she said, “I’ve been on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and I think the President should have the power” to decide on his own to take us to war. That’s why I am not going to vote for her – I think that’s a dangerous and foolish belief.

  112. I think that Hillary, Obama and Edwards all three are rookies unless you believe that Hillary was really President behind the scenes which Dick Morris claims she wasn’t and he should know, he was there.

  113. “Lamar wrote, “I think she voted for the war just to seem like a hawk for a day.”

    “I don’t. I think she was genuine when she said, “I’ve been on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and I think the President should have the power” to decide on his own to take us to war. That’s why I am not going to vote for her – I think that’s a dangerous and foolish belief.”

    I think it’s a little of both. She has to show she is a centrist and that she can be looked at as a strong Commander in Chief. On the other hand, she wants to be in control with no Congressional oversight. She is all about wanting power.

  114. I don’t blame Hillary and Obama at all for their responses to Pace’s comment. … They have nothing to gain from allowing that debate to turn into a discussion of whether gay people are icky

    I don’t like the idea of giving people a pass on not telling us what they really believe. Many times people don’t have anything to gain by doing what they believe is right, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do the right thing.

    Not everything has to be or should be about politics. If someone wants me to vote for them, they shouldn’t be afraid of the political consequences of telling me what they really believe. Leaders lead. They tell people where they stand. The don’t hide behind political expediency.

    I don’t want candidates who only talk about things when they have something to gain by it. (And I think in a case like Hillary who is already fighting the triangulation/calculating perception she would have had something to gain by answering the question honestly)

    The issue of gay people serving in the military is, first and foremost, about the security of our country and our military readiness

    To me the issue of gays in the military has always been about equality and fairness. The fact that they allow gay people to serve as long as it’s on the down-low (and in many cases their fellow soldiers know or at least suspect) pretty much puts to rest the readiness or security questions. If gayness was such a readiness problem they wouldn’t let them serve closeted.

  115. Don’t know how Hillary would do in “purple” states, but as noted above New York is heavily democratic, even upstate. Upstate New York is not New York City, but it also isn’t rural Michigan or Ohio.

    As an article in The New Republic pointed out a while back, Chuck Schumer pulls as many votes in upstate New York as Hillary does. Surely noone would expect those votes to translate to national votes for Schumer. Maybe Hillary can win, but the upstate New York vote doesn’t tell us anything.

  116. OK, CT, let me rephrase.

    The good guys win the argument about gay people serving in the military when it is framed as a question of security and readiness.

    I see no reason why Clinton, Obama, or anyone else should agree to fight these battles according to the conservatives’ preferred frames.

  117. I agree with Joe on the “frames” issue. Real answers to real problems shouldn’t be affected by frames. When I was a teacher I used to ask kids softball questions in a tone that sounded like the obvious answer was totally wrong. I hope a few of those kids remember that lesson. An issue dressed up in fancy rhetoric or sneering tones is the same damn issue as before.

  118. I think all debates should be framed in the context of how the issue at hand affects The Children?.

  119. We agree.

  120. He, on the other hand, would have been the salesman of the year for eight years running at some company.

    Yup.

    After all, the driving lifetime ambition of your average Rhodes Scholar is…

    Salesman of the year (at some company).

  121. If it comes down to Hillary and Rudy the evangelicals will run a 3rd party candidate, the GOP will split and Hillary will win with a popular vote in the high 30%’s.

  122. My favorite Rhodes Scholar is Kris Kristofferson.

  123. Nothin’ short of dyin’ that’s worse than Hillary….

  124. There’s something about Hillary that just screams talking points and focus groups. Everything that comes out of her mouth is as obviously canned and smarmy as a corporate mission statement. And every time I see her with that smug little “Democrats care” smirk, I want to wipe it off her face.

  125. “I don’t. I think she was genuine when she said, “I’ve been on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and I think the President should have the power” to decide on his own to take us to war. That’s why I am not going to vote for her – I think that’s a dangerous and foolish belief.” – joe

    Maybe the most sensible thing joe has ever posted other than this:

    “I don’t blame Hillary and Obama at all for their responses to Pace’s comment. The issue of gay people serving in the military is, first and foremost, about the security of our country and our military readiness. They have nothing to gain from allowing that debate to turn into a discussion of whether gay people are icky.” – joe

    The clouds part, the sun shines, the planets are in alignment and joe and I actually agree on TWO things in the same post.

  126. “There’s something about Hillary that just screams talking points and focus groups. Everything that comes out of her mouth is as obviously canned and smarmy as a corporate mission statement.”

    I feel the same way about Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson and the rest. I have a hard time distinguishing between Hillary’s obviously calculated statements and Obama’s. Oh, was I supposed to buy into the boyish charm? Giuliani’s firm father figure? The Straight Talk Express? Romney’s hair? The DA from Aw Shucksville act? I don’t mean to defend Hillary as much as I mean to say that they’re all pretty much highly packaged and slick candidates.

  127. I wonder if she plays with Bill’s cigars the way Monica did?

  128. I think Hillary has a real shot at winning. either 3rd party conservative candidate in case of Rudy V. Hill and she wins without majority vote. OR most of those 18% give up in the face of a Dem Vs Rep and just vote for her.

    As the campaign progresses people will be reminded of GOPs shortfalls which they aren’t associating with any candidate yet but they will eventually. I WOULD NOT count her out because of this poll, especially this early. She maybe unlikeable but people may respond to her toughness and stand on issues.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.