I didn't think it possible, but Elizabeth is getting Arianna'd.
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 30, 2007 01:43 PMidio, you're right; here we go again... sheesh.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 30, 2007 02:27 PMHillary's negatives are higher than her positives.
If the GOP front runner, whoever it turns out to be can direct this intense dislike of Hillary, the Republicans will hold on to the White House.
The DNC's internal polling knows this and they're freaked out about it.
Posted by Christopher at August 30, 2007 02:35 PM"Willie [Nelsen] is a big Kucinich-backer." It is always reassuring to see that at least someone on that program not named Hillary Clinton will have their priorities correctly focused.
Posted by Erroll at August 30, 2007 03:27 PMThe labor unions are making their choices known, so far, clinton and Dodd are the biggest winners.
Posted by New Age at August 30, 2007 05:20 PMA campaign officially becomes absurd when its straight white southern Christian millionaire male candidate and his wife assert that his pedigree is somehow a hindrance to his Presidential aspirations.
Further, since you've chosen to reference polls, you should be aware that ARG came out with their Iowa poll today that has Clinton 28, Obama 23, and Edwards 20:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iadem8-709.html
With both ARG and Time included in their poll averages, RCP has Clinton 25.8, Edwards 23.8, and Obama 21.5:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/iowa-primary.html
Also with ARG and Time included in their poll averages, Pollster has Clinton at 26.2, Edwards at 24.2, and Obama at 20.3:
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
"The DNC's internal polling knows this and they're freaked out about it." Posted by Christopher
Oh, please. You mean this comes as news to the DNC's political strategist? Jeez
Posted by Judith at August 30, 2007 06:23 PMRe the Time poll:
Edwards Lead Widens in Narrowed Field
When the field was limited to just the top four candidates, Edwards' lead over Clinton widened to 32% - 24%. Obama was at 22%, with Bill Richardson at 13%.
Hard to believe that any union would endorse Hillary after her husband rolled NAFTA over their dead bodies. Apparently, the union leaders are more interested in the welfare of their stock portfolios than their membership.
Posted by cnmne` at August 30, 2007 06:58 PMI think Hillary's negative numbers will matter most if the Republican base tending towards the right abandons the party's nominee. I've said before that I think there is little difference between Hill and Rudy, but I suspect that if Rudy is the Repugly one chosen, the base will will be more likely to become disengaged from voting, leaving the field to Hillary. However if, as I suspect might happen, there is a surprise surge for a more traditional Repub (who knows, could even be McCain or Huckabee), Hillary's high negatives will lead to a more balanced competition between the Dem nominee and the Repugly nominee. All assuming that Hillary gets the nomination.
As far as union endorsements go, considering the history of unions and politics over the last forty years, I guess the less said the better.
Posted by Julie at August 30, 2007 07:23 PMRudy said in one of the debates that "it will be Ok to overturn Roe v Wade" and yet, Julie still doesn't see the difference.
It doesn't matter which of the clowns you republicans choose, Hillary will win anyday. Labor unions are very important to democrats thats why all the candidates seek their endorsements.You may not understand, because republican party do not care about ordinary people labor union inclusive.
So you all go ahead and choose that low life Giuliani who slept with his own cousin and married her as his first wife (yurk), democrats will prevail in 2008.
Posted by New Age at August 30, 2007 08:04 PMCount me as a Dem who never revered Bill Clinton. I defended him while despising his GOP Lite policies. And other than giving good funerals, I can't think of much he did beyond the blowjobs he gave to the Chambers of Commerce while sticking it to the lower middle class and the poor.
An analysis of Hill's voting record showed only Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Joementum were more conservative among Senate Dems and Indies.
Better than any Republican? Okay, but that's such a low bar to hurdle.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at August 30, 2007 08:20 PMI didn't vote for the other Clinton. I won't vote for this one.
Posted by Anon at August 30, 2007 08:27 PMAn analysis of Hill's voting record showed only Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Joementum were more conservative among Senate Dems and Indies.
Hillary was born into a GOP family and embraced those values.
She may've married a Democrat but if you scratch beneath the surface, there's a GOPer trying to get out.
Anyone who voted for the USA Patriot Act as Hillary did and then remarkably, after it was discredited by legal scholars, voted to reauthorize it, has no business running for president as a Democrat.
Posted by Christopher at August 30, 2007 08:28 PMTo all of the Clintons haters, I am happy that you have a medium to vent out your frustration. The good news is, just like your vote againt Bill didn't matter, Hillary too doesn't need your vote. Thank you.
Posted by New Age at August 31, 2007 06:37 AMWhat did Bill Clinton accomplish??? I voted for him twice, yet it seems he was just a moderate Republican president.
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 31, 2007 07:28 AM22 million jobs were created
...biggest projected surplus in history
just 2 minor things
Posted by dennis at August 31, 2007 07:45 AMHillary did a good job of appearing warmer on Letterman. Smart move for her campaign.
That singer they had on at the end of the show, I think his name was Willy Nelson, also showed some possibilities.
Posted by TIKI AL at August 31, 2007 09:09 AMAnother minor observation: during Clinton administration, America was not only prosperous and peaceful but also well liked and loved all over the world.
Posted by New Age at August 31, 2007 09:22 AM