Steve, given that this is a national poll and how she is doing in state-specific polls in IA and NH, I question whether the margins in the Post poll are anything more than her being so well-known.
Interesting that her numbers have gone up among women, but how many of those supporting her see her as a liberal while perhaps the new support actually views her as the moderate she has been trying to be.
Posted by Soldat at January 20, 2007 10:43 PMam also surprised to see how well she does amongst Democratic women against Obama.
I just don't get this reasoning. Obama and Clinton don't seem far apart on most issues, though Obama sounds mostly careful to me. Is the suggestion that women vote according some criteria other than the issues that matter to them? Or that we won't vote for Clinton because we won't vote for a woman? What am I missing?
Posted by truffula at January 20, 2007 11:22 PMI think many women, and men like myself, are delighted that a woman is running and is a leading candidate. Women, however, at least single women, have been polling strongly anti-war for some time now. They will be torn, as I am too, by attraction to Clinton's smarts and liberal record on some issues versus her hawkish stance for the last few years on the war. I'm not sure what these latest poll numbers mean; maybe they reflect initial joy that a woman is running at all.
Posted by DeanOR at January 21, 2007 01:42 AMGender isn't Le Hill's strength or problem, her problem is her vote to authorize Bush to start a war and her hawkishness on Iraq ever since.
Mrs. Clinton is so afraid of appearing soft on national defense that she still can't say outright that the troops need to come home and funding for the war end.
Instead, she wants to "cap" current troop levels and send more troops to Afghanistan. Her views reek of Joe Lieberman.
Posted by Christopher at January 21, 2007 04:49 AMWell, as a woman and Democrat, I will not hold my nose and vote for Hilliary. I will not vote to continue the dynasties of Bush/Clinton. I just won't vote. I also have a problem with people who know damn well this war is wrong, but for political reasons, or for that matter any reason, has refused to stand up and be counted.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2007 04:58 AMAs a gay man and a liberal Democrat, I have mentioned more than once, my exchanges with Sen. Clinton vis a vis gay marriage equity and Iraq.
Clinton claims her views on gay marriage equity have "evolved." More likely, she's worried she may experience further erosion of her base so she made a political calculation to suddenly soften her views. Plus, she likes our money and our creativity.
Regarding Iraq, Clinton warbled almost word-for-word Cheney's lies about Saddam and his alleged ties to 9/11 and his threat to the region and to the USA. I will not forget Clinton's glassy-eyed hawkishness on Iraq.
If the election comes down to a race between McCain and Clinton, I won't vote. I will for the first time, stand with the majority of Americans who don't bother to go to the polls at all.
Hopefully, it won't come to this and Clinton won't get the nomination.
Posted by Christopher at January 21, 2007 05:50 AMHtlry jst md B sm vn mr pplng t mllns.
[Editor: ignore=off]Well, as a woman and Democrat, I will not hold my nose and vote for Hillary. I will not vote to continue the dynasties of Bush/Clinton. I just won't vote.
I feel exactly the same way. I won't be complicit in furthering Ms. Clinton's personal ambition. I'm tired of her personal ambition. I want politicans who serve the people, not themselves. If I can't write in a vote, I'll leave the Presidential slot blank if she's the candidate.
Even the timing of her announcement came AFTER others had led the way - Obama obviously forced her hand. She decided she was anti-surge AFTER everyone else in the country (including 75% of the people, former military, diplomats, ex-Presidents, Gerald Ford from beyond the grave, etc.) had gone on record against it. Does she have any personal convictions? Only the ambition. It's like she's trying for a Guinness Book of Records title - 1st woman president of the US.
And, beyond that, I'm so tired of Clintons in public life. Bring back Carter, or his children. Why not just recycle the presidence among 3 families for the next generation or so?
Posted by brooklyn at January 21, 2007 05:52 AMI'll vote for the ho'bag.
Posted by Mal Feasance at January 21, 2007 05:56 AMEnough Repuke Lite. Hillary has been and is ignoring her constituents and the people of this country on the war in favor of the same old bullshit political games. The house is on fire and she's goddamn studying whether her mascara is right.
Hagel 08. I'm serious.
Good comment, brooklyn.
I call her the "me-too girl".
She wants to be president for status.
It is always all about her.
One small example, at ann Richards funeral, Hillary talked about HER run for the Senate and said that Ann had told her about being strong (translation, Joan of Arc)
The essence of Clinton is the Gandhi gas station joke.
Not only is it crass, she doesn't know it is obnoxious and she goes on and on.
Find it and listen to it.
Also, she doesn't speak off the cuff and does not do well with confrontation.
She has, so far, been totally scripted. You rarely hear the very peculiar statements she comes out with.
Keep in mind, she has NEVER been described as kind.
If Hillory gets elected, sell your vacation property in the Falklands. It is very selfish to abandon such a precarious senate. That goes for Obama too.
Anyone
But
Clinton.
I understand she is a triangulator. I understand that works from time to time to achieve political objectives. It worked okay for Bill and I think Bill was a good president.
But as I have said before, I cannot believe she is the best thing the Dems can put forward. I guess I can agree there are times for her style of politics, but right now the 'zeitgeist' calls for some passionate conviction about something in the common good. I do not get that from Sen Clinton. She is a technician, but we need something other than a technician (I think).
Posted by gtash at January 21, 2007 06:45 AMNothing in these early polls really surprise me. Many Americans, this in spite of the media blitz, still has not really heard or understood Barack Obama. When you look at polls for name recognition, former Governor Bill Richardson almost doesn't make the charts. This is in spite of the fact he has really been a pretty high-profile figure in the Democratic Party for over a decade.
Here's my problem with Hillary Clinton. I do believe she's very intelligent and thoughtful. I also believe that she would make an excellent president. Unfortunately, she comes with some baggage. In my opinion, there is no one in the country who doesn't know Hillary Clinton. Everyone already has an opinion of her. I'm not sure that there's much that she can do to change negative opinions. She was so beat up and so vilified by the right, it is not clear to me that she can win over any Republicans. I also believe, again these are beliefs because we have no data (at least there's no data that I know of), but she will have trouble with right leaning independents.
Posted by ecthompson at January 21, 2007 07:30 AMthe vitriol towards hillary clinton on this blog comes as a bit of a surprise to me..i am not sure what she has ever done in her life to warrant such comments..is she ambitious..yes..it's how you accomplish things in life..has she ridden the middle ..yes..it's where you win..forget the ideology..you need pragmatism..not bullshit..has she waffled on the war..yes..she has played politics with just like anyone else..and as much as i am against it you can't just pick up and leave iraq..it's about oil and keeping the oil reserves out of the hands of iran..always has been..oil is the blood that flows through the world economy and in that sense it is in our national security..we would be better off just saying so then acting like we're fighting for democracy..i belive hillary clinton can do good things for the people of this country..and wants to..and for all of you that think she is a heartless ambitious bitch..i think that you are flat out wrong...her life is one of accomplishment..she has been a tremendous senator for the people of ny..she has formed strong relationships on both sides of the isle..it's how you get things done.. forget all the fabricated pre-conceived notion about her...she is bright and can win
Posted by dennis at January 21, 2007 07:52 AMIn short, No they won't
Posted by Chris at January 21, 2007 07:52 AMi am not sure what she has ever done in her life to warrant such comments
She, Hillary, voted to authorize Bush's Iraq war. A war as many as 70% of Americans now oppose.
To support her, Hillary, requires the voter to be either obtuse or braindead.
Posted by Christopher at January 21, 2007 07:59 AMSpeaking of presidential candidates, fundie GOPer Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback appeared on This Week with G. Steph and said overturning Roe will be his top priority.
L.u.n.a.t.i.c.
Posted by Christopher at January 21, 2007 08:10 AMmost of the senate voted to authorize the war..did so with false information..whatever..that's in the past..we need to move forward and learn from mistakes..i can assure you that i am neither obtuse or braindead..and i'd vote for her....in life things are 3 ways..the way they use to be..the way you would like them to be..and third and most important..the ways things really are..best to stay focused on the last..she can win..and i'll take bill as sec. of state...in a heartbeat
Posted by dennis at January 21, 2007 08:44 AMfor all of her baggage as you call it..and by the way who is it that doesn't come with baggage?...i don't think hillary as ever been looked at from a national perspective for who she is..she has been a tremendous advocate for womens rights her whole life..and human rights..when put under the microscope nationally she will stand up....no one in history has ever been investigated like the clintons for wrongdoing..nobody..what did they find..nothing..
Posted by dennis at January 21, 2007 08:51 AMChimp empowerment was a gutless political move, and it comes with price.
I am swapping Edwards for Richardson. Governors win general elections.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 21, 2007 09:03 AMChimp empowerment was a gutless political move, and it comes with price.
Agreed. Hillary isn't skillful enough to spin her pro-Iraq war vote and win back the base. She's going to get her you-know-what handed to her in the debates over Iraq.
That leaves Obama, Richardson and Gore, if he decides to run. I'm not forgetting Kucinich. I just don't see him as a national figure.
Posted by Christopher at January 21, 2007 10:11 AMI live in NM, where - by the way - Richardson is STILL the governor. I like him, quite honestly, he's a mover and shaker in this state and has "clintonesque" charm. He's also Hispanic. On the other hand, I think to vilify Hilary for voting yes on the war is somewhat ridiculous. Sure, she's political. So is Richardson. You don't get anywhere by not being political - it's politics. It seems to me that Hilary has borne the brunt for every decision that MANY MANY made - bad ones, sure. But instead of being impressed by her moxie and intelligence - well, I think a chance is needed. And I'm an ex Californian who can tell you that Nancy Pelosi has not always smelled like roses, either.
Posted by sara at January 21, 2007 11:46 AMSteve Clemons at The Washington Note has an interesting article on Richardson.
Posted by Sally at January 21, 2007 04:21 PMIt's not that Hillary voted for the war, it's that she has not stood up against the war now.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2007 05:10 PMshe's against expanding the war and redeploying as i understand it..it's a smart position..and i think the right one...the war was a mistake..and it was wrong..but we're there..and we have to deal with what we have..and have a plan to get out..
Posted by dennis at January 21, 2007 05:32 PMYes it IS because she voted for the war, and we wouldn't "be there now" if it were not for political whores like Hillory.
Yea Richardson!
Posted by TIKI AL at January 21, 2007 06:31 PMI just don't get these stories. I've been railing against them on other blogs also. Has everyone forgotten that it's not the POPULAR vote that matters, it's the Electoral College? The critical question isn't how any of the candidates do with the public (or sections of it) at large, it's how they do in the swing states. In this context, the question asked several months ago by another blogger (I think Yglesias, but I'm not sure) is the only pertinent one: Can you name a state that Kerry didn't win, that it's reasonable to think Clinton could? He couldn't, and I can't either. That's the ONLY question that matters.
Posted by Rebecca Allen, PhD, ARNP at January 21, 2007 06:53 PMif she has enough guts to run..she needs people with enough guts to follow her..clarity..pragmatism..a vison for america is what she brings to the table..and a very sucessful experienced ex-president as a confidant..if gore doesn't run..she'll get the nomination..and she can win..to hold the iraq war vote against her is naive....a lot of people have been misled by the scum running the country now..it's a free country "i think"...everyone is entitled to their opinion..but let it be based in fact and not the garbage that you have been fed by the media..the clintons were good for this country and can be again..i do not think she is a meglomaniac...judge on on her record..
Posted by dennis at January 21, 2007 07:39 PMcan she pull off universal health care?
if she can, she will get every mother's vote, and likely get most of the men's vote.
what else is important that empowers everyone in this country?
is there anything else that equalizes from the bottom up?
"But as I have said before, I cannot believe she is the best thing the Dems can put forward. I guess I can agree there are times for her style of politics, but right now the 'zeitgeist' calls for some passionate conviction about something in the common good. I do not get that from Sen Clinton. She is a technician, but we need something other than a technician (I think)."
Posted by gtash at January 21, 2007 06:45 AM
I agree and well put gtash. She is a consumate politician and this covers up her passionate conviction (or she really has none).
Unfortunately, she is also a "symbol" to the Right that may allow the Republicans to pull together after the butt-kicking they took. For that same reason, if she decides to run, I fear for her safety more than other candidate because I am afraid someone right wing nutbag will try to kill her. She is not just a "liberal", she is a liberal woman. She is not just a liberal woman, but a Clinton. It will drive the wingnuts absolutely crazy.
If she runs it will make for an interesting race. I hope that everyone behaves themselves though.