Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Hillary Clinton Might Be the Least Electable Democrat

By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet. Posted December 7, 2007.


While Hillary Clinton maintains her lead in national polling among Democrats, in direct match-ups against Republicans, she consistently trails her competitors.
20071207story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Why McCain and the GOP Are So Afraid of Discussing the Economy
Frances Moore Lappe

Democracy and Elections:
Seven Ways Your Vote Might Not Count This November
Steven Rosenfeld

DrugReporter:
Lunatic Drug Warriors Still Ignore Powerful Pot Science
Rob Kampia

Election 2008:
Weird Theology in Wasilla: A Look Inside Sarah Palin's Pentecostal Church
Bruce Wilson

Environment:
Boatloads of Trouble: How We Are Importing Our Way to Destruction
Stan Cox

ForeignPolicy:
The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It
Tom Engelhardt

Health and Wellness:
Pollution Can Make You Fat
Geoffrey Lean

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Leader of Anti-Immigration Movement Calls Issue a "Skirmish in a Wider War"
Eric Ward

Media and Technology:
Watch Rachel Maddow's Debut Show Launch on MSNBC Tonight: She Fights Lies Uttered by Politicians, Repeated by Media
The Masher

Movie Mix:
Does "Working Girls" Still Work?
Ariel Dougherty

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Rutgers Center Helps Women Enter Politics
Alison Bowen

Rights and Liberties:
On Top of Jail Time, Prisoners Now Face Fees and Surcharges
Emily Jane Goodman

Sex and Relationships:
What Republicans Can Learn from "Gossip Girl"
Sarah Seltzer

War on Iraq:
One Fifth of Iraq Funding Goes to Private Contractors
Willam Fisher

Water:
Is California on the Brink of Environmental Collapse?
Rachel Olivieri

More stories by Guy T. Saperstein

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Last Sunday's New York Times contained an op-ed by Frank Rich ("Who's Afraid of Barack Obama," Dec. 2) suggesting that, for a variety of reasons, Barack Obama is the Democrat the Republicans fear most. While Rich emphasized Obama's authenticity, his early and unequivocal opposition to the Iraq war and his cross-over appeal to independents and Republicans, missing from his otherwise excellent article were polling results confirming why Republicans fear an Obama presidential candidacy and why they would prefer to run against Hillary Clinton.

While Clinton maintains her lead in national polling among Democrats, in direct matchups against Republican presidential candidates, she consistently runs behind both Barack Obama and John Edwards. In the recent national Zogby Poll (Nov. 26, 2007), every major Republican presidential candidate beats Clinton: McCain beats her 42 percent to 38 percent; Giuliani beats her 43 percent to 40 percent; Romney beats her 43 percent to 40 percent; Huckabee beats her 44 percent to 39 percent; and Thompson beats her 44 percent to 40 percent, despite the fact Thompson barely appears to be awake most of the time.

By contrast, Obama beats every major Republican candidate: He beats McCain 45 percent to 38 percent; Guiliani 46 percent to 41 percent; Romney 46 percent to 40 percent; Huckabee 46 percent to 40 percent; and, Thompson 47 percent to 40 percent. In other words, Obama consistently runs 8 to 11 percent stronger than Clinton when matched against Republicans. To state the obvious: The Democratic presidential candidate will have to run against a Republican.

Clinton's inherent weakness as a candidate shows up in other ways. In direct matchups for congressional seats, Democrats currently are running 10 percent to 15 percent ahead of Republicans, depending on the poll, while Clinton runs 3 percent to 7 percent behind -- a net deficit ranging from 13 to 22 percent. No candidate in presidential polling history ever has run so far behind his or her party.

To look at Clinton's candidacy another way, Clinton runs well behind generic polling for the presidency: In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted Nov. 1-5, 2007, voters were asked, "Putting aside for a moment the question of who each party's nominee might be, what is your preference for the outcome of the 2008 presidential election -- that a Democrat be elected president or that a Republican be elected president?" By 50 percent to 35 percent, voters chose "Democrat" -- a 15-point edge. Thus, Clinton is running 10 to 15 percent, or more, behind the generic Democratic candidate. This is not a promising metric nor the numbers of a strong candidate.

Look at Iowa: It is neck-and-neck, with Obama, Clinton and Edwards running close among the first tier of Democratic candidates. But Clinton is the only woman running against seven men, yet polls only around 25 percent. When you have been in the public eye for 15 years and are well-known, when your husband was a popular president and remains perhaps the most popular Democrat in America, when you are the only female candidate in a race against seven men, but you are polling just 25 percent, you are not a strong candidate.

I had occasion last week to speak for an hour and a half with a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in a battleground state. Without revealing who I favored in the Democratic primary, I asked, "Who would help you the most at the top of the Democratic ticket in November 2008?" Without hesitation, the candidate [who cannot take a public position in the presidential primary] responded: "I can tell you who would hurt me the most -- Hillary Clinton. She has 30-40 percent of voters in my state who never would vote for her under any circumstances, and she is no one's second choice. Her support is lukewarm, at best."

In a recent article in the New Republic, Thomas F. Schaller quoted two Midwestern politicians about the negative effect of having Clinton lead the Democratic ticket in 2008. Missouri House Minority Whip Connie Johnson warned, "If Hillary comes to the state of Missouri, we can write it off." Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Indiana stated, "I'm not sure it (Clinton candidacy) would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, democratic frontrunners, electability, hillary clinton, hillary

Guy T. Saperstein is past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I will not support Hillary Clinton for president - Molly Ivins
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 7, 2007 12:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will not support Hillary Clinton for president
January 20, 2006

"AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges. "

I'll take Molly's word for it . We saw more triangulation when HRC proposed a foreclosure moratorium. She knows very well this is an impossibility and played it for all it was worth. The vote with Lieberman on Iran was the last straw. "Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation."

The dislike of HRC is well grounded in fact and will only be exploited.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sexism
Posted by: abbadon2007 on Dec 7, 2007 1:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Justify all you like with her questionable votes and unfortunate personal life. I don't believe anyone has a serious doubt that Clinton is polling low out of sexism.

To a man, the republican field is pitiful. Whatever Clinton's shortcomings, they are shared or worse in her prospective opponents. Giuliani is the favorite hated of fire and police departments for his disastrous treatment of city resources leading up to 9/11, and battling issues of legality over his use of funds. Religious zealotry and political sell-outs characterize her opposition, yet still she polls behind.

What's yet more surprising is her downright viscious treatment by women. Sexism is a factor among men, certainly, but it appears that Hillary will not be able to count on one iota of greater support from the population of women voters.

Why? The country can do better on the democratic ticket than Hillary, that's for sure, but not in the republican ticket. Women on the right seem to be siding with the patriarchy. Do our god-fearing southern ladies feel so inferior?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sexism ? or triangulation ? Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Sexism Posted by: skydog
» RE: Sexism Posted by: JSquercia
» Sexism? Please. Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: Sexism? That's just silly! Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Sexism-don't generalize Posted by: donl51
» Thank you for your responses. Posted by: abbadon2007
» RE: Sexism Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: Sexism Posted by: abbadon2007
Typical
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 7, 2007 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is how "mainstream" corporate Democrats think these days: Pick the most boring candidate who acts the most like a Republican. In a lovely irony, that thinking looks like it will come back to bite them...again.

That's why they trotted Kerry around as a war hero. He had no substance, but if they could only convince Red voters that he burned a lot of villages like a good soldier...Nice try.

Remember Bentsen, Lieberman...?

It will be interesting to see what they try next to appease the wing-nuts. If Obama is showing well in the polls, maybe they'll paint him white and have his hair straightened.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Typical Posted by: baad
» RE: Typical Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: So what is your solution? Posted by: improperly_sedated
» The Problem of Bushism Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Typical Posted by: Bibsi
Based on her performance--no!
Posted by: Urstrly on Dec 7, 2007 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a feminist, I'm disheartened by the low number of women in public office, but as a progressive Democrat, I've been appalled by Clinton's by-the-poll-numbers approach to politics. I would have voted for the Wellesley graduation speaker or the nerdy Arkansas first lady Hillary or the Hillary who went to China on our behalf while Bill was president, but in the Senate, she has become an automaton, agreeing mindlessly to give Bush (and successive presidents) powers approaching dictatorship and paving the way for pre-emptive wars in Iraq and Iran. In spite of her wishy-washy position on abortion, Emily's List still supports her, but I won't.

Ironically, opposition to Hillary is the only political point on which my right-wing, Wall Street son-in-law agree. His reasons are different from mine; they come from the gut, but I think his political agenda would be well-served by a Clinton presidency. Which is why, as the writer points out, it ain't happening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Based on her performance--no! Posted by: lisaisalefty
Nice to see the figures set out. I too would not vote Clinton. Her candidacy would be good news
Posted by: Suzon on Dec 7, 2007 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for third party candidates as well as for Republicans.

When I became eligible to vote, I registered Republican in order to vote against Goldwater (who seemed about as far right as possible at the time) in the California primary. Would it really be surprizing if a number of Republicans have switched registration (in states that don't have open primaries) in order to promote Hillary's candidacy? They have the "we must do whatever it takes" mindset!

Many Republicans are now disgusted with the failures of George W Bush and look to be uninspired by whoever gets to be their candidate, but the rabid Clinton haters will not stay at home on polling day if they can vote against her.

Her being a woman is no big deal one way or another to me. We need an electable progressive. That's Edwards, in my view. Remember that the presidential election is above all about the Supreme Court.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Democrat who helps
Posted by: robchapman on Dec 7, 2007 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a lot of speculation that Senator Clinton is weak among non-Democratic groups.

I write speculation because it is based on hypothetical polling match-ups.

In the only polls that count, the ones in which voters come to the polling place and have their ballots certified by their election boards, Clinton is a monster.

In NYS, Clinton runs better than Democratic registration in ALL DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS.

Clinton has shown enormous strength among unaffiliated voters.

Most importantly, Clinton's support is deep.

There is no buyer's remorse.

People who support Clinton stick by her, an important factor for governing effectively.

There is simply no other person in the Democratic race who shows this sort of strength.

The areas and demographics where Clinton is weak are areas and demographics where all the Dems are weak.

Clinton alone has shown the savvy, persistence and ability to push the numbers- Clinton can change people's minds through her campaigning.

She will be a formidable nominee and she will have strong coat-tails that will pull other Democrats into office behind her.

There is no one else in the race for the 08 nomination race who can bring more unaffiliated voters into the Democratic colunm than Clinton.

Hilary Clinton as nominee will strengthen the down ballot appeal of the Democratic Party more than any other person in the 08 race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Democrat who helps Posted by: papananook
» RE: A Democrat who helps Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: A Democrat who helps Posted by: Raymonde
» RE: A Democrat who helps Posted by: jmp3954
» RE: A Democrat who helps Posted by: Bibsi
The Hillary Problem
Posted by: Tom Degan on Dec 7, 2007 4:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah! Finally a little common sense!

Why do you think that most of the right wing talking points and talking heads are proclaiming that Hillary will be their most formidable foe next year? Whoooa! They're sure scared of her, ay? Don't you see what they're trying to do here, folks? They're trying to lull the Democrats into thinking that she's unbeatable - and the Dems are falling for it hook, line and sinker!

Why do you think Rupert Murdoch (of all people) has been holding fundraisers for her? Do you sincerely believe that the owner of FOX Noise and the New York Toast wants her as our next president? It's merely a cynical, political ploy on Murdoch's part. Why do you think the corporate media has virtually crowned her as the heiress to next summer's nomination? They all want her to be the next nominee because they know damned good and well that she's bound to lose - and the stupid fucking Democrats haven't the wit to figure any of this out! EEK GADS! It embarrasses me that I was even associated with that worthless party for twenty years!

Trust me on this one, campers: the right wing is praying for Hillary Clinton's nomination.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY.
"The
Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Hillary Problem Posted by: iconoblaster
» RE: Being Independent Posted by: papananook
» RE: Being Independent Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: The Hillary Problem Posted by: Chloe2005
» RE: The Hillary Problem Posted by: rocketman
» RE: The Hillary Problem Posted by: Bibsi
Reasons to support Clinton
Posted by: robchapman on Dec 7, 2007 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is appalling to me that readers refer to corporate America as if they are invoking the kingdom of evil.

Clinton's support from corporate America is another demonstration that she is willing to be the President of all of America.

Unlike Bush, she will not be a corporate pawn, instead she will work in the manner of T. Roosevelt, Wilson and other progressive President's to make corporate America better citizens.

Clinton's philosphy, spelled out in It Takes A Village, is a philosophy of shared risk, shared benefits, shared responsibility, accountability and shared benefits.

It stands in stark contrast to the every man for himself philosophy currently prevalent in America.

Unlike the GOP conservative "revolutionaries" who run rough shod over opposition and the constitution to enact their goals, Senator Clinton is striving to accomodate all views.

The policy of triangulation requires a patient advocacy of right and left views and then a creative dialog to devise a third way to effectively deal with the issue at hand.

Clinton is not promising revolution, heaven on earth or any other hot tempered intolerant form of change.

Instead she offers patient, nurturing strength- moving us together to tough mindedly and realistically deal with our differences and then solve our problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: easons to support Clinton Posted by: Jeffrey Levy
» RE: Reasons to support Clinton Posted by: jay diamond
» RE: easons to support Clinton Posted by: papananook
» Corporations are Americans? Posted by: sliver
» RE: easons to support Clinton Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: easons to support Clinton Posted by: damianmann
Fuggedabowdit
Posted by: PJT on Dec 7, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary can't win and won't win. I know that because I would never vote for Hillary. If I won't vote for her, millions of other older men with college and advanced degrees who read and think, in other words, one of the Democrats' core constituencies, will never vote for her either.

You may say "but consider the alternative!" That's the problem: I can rationalize that having some new Moron in Chief like Huckabee who puts his stock in Stone Age myth and hasn't seen a freebie he can't resist taking home with him will HASTEN the day when America either grows up or blows up. Maybe we need some more fat white fascists on the Supreme Court to tell women what they are allowed to do with their own bodies; maybe we need tens of millions of women to wake up one day no longer sovereigns of their own wombs to shake this country up. When we had the draft, we ended the war. When women become subject to the domination and will of their husbands and fathers, they will begin to take their role in a democratic society seriously.

So, fuggedabowdit: no way. Dream on. Hillary is "more of the same" and I refuse to vote for more of the same. I want change.

By the way, has anybody figured out what Hillary stands for yet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fuggedabowdit Posted by: setterwoman
» RE: Fuggedabowdit Posted by: donl51
» RE: Fuggedabowdit Posted by: Bibsi
one more thing....
Posted by: Tom Degan on Dec 7, 2007 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Dems need to nominate a candidate who will energize and inspire "the base". Hillary Clinton is not the person who will do that. If they make her the party's standard bearer next year, they can count on another third party uprising. That's a chance they can't afford to take. You remember what happened in 2000, don't you?

I'll be voting for the Democratic candidate next year come heck or high water. But if Hillary is the one I'm forced to vote for, I'll be holding my nose, trust me.

Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: one more thing.... Posted by: papananook
» RE: one more thing.... Posted by: davidbdr
» RE: one more thing.... Posted by: oregoncharles
» forced Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: one more thing.... Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: one more thing.... Posted by: Afban
Hilary Clinton: Dream Candidate
Posted by: Jeffrey Levy on Dec 7, 2007 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hilary Clinton is the Democratic dream candidate
for any Republican.

The Democrats show once again their complete lack of political guts -- Hilary Clinton supported her husband when his embargo was killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children -- and political intelligence: Hilary Clinton is eminently hateable
on a gut level.

Note from the Republican Party: Dear Democrats, Please, please make Hilary Clinton my opponent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Clinton and Sanctions Posted by: CUnknown
» RE: Clinton and Sanctions Posted by: niliadis
Hilary's Village -- Starvation, Slaughter and Dispossession
Posted by: Jeffrey Levy on Dec 7, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hilary Clinton's It Takes A Village philosophy is exemplified by her standing silently by while the embargo against Iraq maintained by her husband and established by his predecessor in the White House caused the deaths of approximately 850,000 Iraqi children who lived in thousands of villages across the country; by her support for the invasion of Iraq which has led to the deaths of more than one million civilians in cities and villages; by her support for US-Israeli policies which, in defiance of international law and virtually every government in the world, prevent three million Palestinians from returning to the villages and cities from which they were expelled by the Israeli government.

Unfortunately, this policy does not stand "in stark contrast" in any way to the standard philosophy of corporate capitalism and militarism applied every day by the powerful in America. It exemplifies that policy while describing it in a patently ludicrous homey, "village-friendly" language that demonstrates Hilary' thorough hypocrisy and cynicism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

johncp
Posted by: johnp on Dec 7, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who had any doubts, that the republicans would join forces to defeat Hillary, have ample proof that it's happening with unbridled intensity You have the spectacle of all these posts, telling us how badly Hillary will do against the republicans, and that Hillary isn't liked, and that she's unelectable, and blah, blah, blah! What bullshit. If Hillary can get through to the nomination and win it, she'll trounce any republican, and that's with Zogby (the republicans's favorite pollster) delilvering bad news about her candidacy all along the way. People should look at "all" the polls, not just the ones being published in media. By the way, why is Alternet delivering this pretense to the readers? The Zogby poll is among a couple of polls showing Clinton in the worst possible light; this among about a dozen polls, most of which are showing Hillary with double digit leads over all the candidates. Why is Alternet not clarifying this fact? Why are all of media playing this game, with all the republicans piling on with their BS; because that's the only way they have a chance of defeating Hillary in the few weeks remaining where her chances of getting the nomination must be derailed. It's amusing to see all these posters desperately telling us not to vote for Hillary, because she's unelectable. Where do they get this notion? They're not getting it from her front runner status, because the notion is preposterous. Front-runners are front-runners. The only hope the republicans have, is not in having a good program of their own to offer the people, but in destroying their competitors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» really? Posted by: skydog
» RE: really? Posted by: babs
» RE: johncp Posted by: Raymonde
» RE: johncp Posted by: Bibsi
» What polls? Posted by: sliver
nealie
Posted by: OneliaG on Dec 7, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was wondering why they mention one of the Republican candidates running for the presidency Ron Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is this? A reprise of the anti-Gore campaign?
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 7, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same old BS I remember from 2000. Do you recall--"no difference between a republican and a democrat"?

We not only missed the opportunity to have a brilliant young (then) politician as prexy (his credentials were evident at the time) but we got the Shrub? Progressives need to pull their saintly heads out of their unsaintly stink holes. If you want a saint, go to church and stay out of politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary least electable in matchup vs Repugs????
Posted by: xvictor on Dec 7, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rudy Ghouliani's own poll numbers plummetted by nine points recently as more skeletons in his large closet are being exposed in the MSM, and Huckabee and Romney are getting a lot of attention lately.

I could believe that poll number if the matchup was against Ron Paul. But we'll see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I apoligize Posted by: CUnknown
skingk
Posted by: skingk on Dec 7, 2007 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, Hillary is certainly the dream candidate for the Republican opposition.

Now, Obama and Edwards and are very much alike, platform-wise, and these two together have a lot of support. So an Obama-Edwards or Edwards-Obama ticket looks very promising compared to their opposition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not the best choice
Posted by: Democritus on Dec 7, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would dearly love to see a woman as President, but someone like Barbara Boxer, not Hillary Clinton.

What worked for Bill Clinton will not work for Hillary. Bill veered to the right on social and economic issues, and so he outflanked Newt Gingrich and the Republican revolutionaries. Hillary's veering to the right in voting for the war, accepting corporation money, and cozying up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch runs her into a wall. The Bush administration is so far to the right, that there's no more room for the type of manuevering that Bill was so adept at. Hillary's present positions--on the war, on Iran, on globalism--do not distinguish her from moderate Republicans. Therefore, if she runs against someone like Giuliani or Romney, voters would be likely to pick the real Republican over the faux Democrat.

Hillary is smart and Hillary is ambitious and crafty. She has even convinced some people that she has more experience than the other Democratic candidates, which, of course, is false, because her only real experience is in the Senate where she voted to support Bush's wars.

Hillary might just win a general election, but it would be a long shot. The best thing she could do for the Democratic Party and for the country would be to retire from the race. That would ensure a landslide victory for whomever the Democratic nominee is. Will she do that? Fat chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

johncp
Posted by: johnp on Dec 7, 2007 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary has been the front-runner from the beginning. Why, then, are media ganging up on her, while they pretend she's the favorite candidate of a right wing that can win against her? Media simply doesn't care what the public wants, and never will. They're determined to impose their will on the proceedings, including savaging Hillary's campaign, even though she's easily the most popular candidate. Everywhere I look in media, they're boldly stratgizing various methods of derailing her campaign, as if destroying Hillary is fair game for "objective" or "liberal media." Is it any wonder that her numbers have fallen. Hillary can easily overcome the oppositions she faces from other candidates from both sides of the aisle, but when to this competition, is added a concerted and vicious effort by media, to derail her campaign, what chance does she have? If media are working to destroy Hillary, it should tell us that conservatives are behind it; since they own and operate media. Ironically, we're also being told by these Hillary haters, that "the republicans favor a Hillary nomination." If people believe that, they'll believe anything. All I've seen in media, even here on Alternet, is a determined effort to overcome her campaingn with insult, innuendo, lies and exaggerations. Hillary may lose, but everything tells me I should vote for her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: johncp Posted by: karmaburger
» RE: johncp Posted by: damianmann
» RE: johncp - It's no pretense Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: johncp Posted by: niliadis
» RE: johncp Posted by: Bibsi
Polls and the results
Posted by: rhbee on Dec 7, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America is awash in this poll mentality. I wonder which Repugnant thought of them first? "Hmmm, what if we ask our friends what they think and then call it a poll? If we ask 10 people and 4 of them agree, then we can say that as a result of our poll, 40% of those polled agree. Meanwhile, the more polls we can create the better." Have you gone on the blogosphere lately? Every post can have its own poll.

Mean, in another, while, if Hillary wins the Democants nomination, it will be because the majority of the voters in her party voted FOR her. That will be the only poll that counts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Polls and the results Posted by: Chloe2005
» RE: Polls and the results Posted by: niliadis
I reiterate
Posted by: papananook on Dec 7, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has nothing to do with polls, Repug strategy, talk radio, sexism, the main stream media or anything but a clear look at Hillary's record and lack of character, integrity and honesty!
That's why so many non-Repugs (Dems or Indy's) WON'T VOTE FOR HER!
She exemplifies the worst (aside from Rove,Cheney-Bush, Ghouliani, et al) side of cynical politics. I just don't believe her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I reiterate Posted by: niliadis
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
GO HILLARY!
Posted by: Axiom69 on Dec 7, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a democracy hating, facist, right wing Republican troll I can tell you that I want Hillary to get the nomination. A well placed source has told me that my fellow republicans are just waiting for Hillary to get the nomination so they can trot out Jeb Bush to be the next President. Another Bush Presidency! It doesn't get any better than that. Just think of all the countries we can invade in the next 8 years being our entire military is already oversees. You progressives shouldn't bother protesting either or we'll send you to gitmo. Support Hillary and make my Republican dreams come true!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GO HILLARY! Posted by: Landbaron
Dismayed by your comments about Hillary
Posted by: clthompson on Dec 7, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read the disapproval of many on this list of a Hillary presidency and I am convinced your comments are motivated by latent sexism. No, you are not aware of it; people rarely are aware that they are sexist or racist. Sure she is not perfect, has been unfairly assailed by conservatives over the years, and I am not happy about her corporate point of view, but were she a man, not many of you would wage the same arguments, or focus on the same issues. She is intelligent, well spoken, and is vastly superior to the entire group of Republican candidates. I have heard comments about women in public life all my life, things like, "Sure I am in favor of a women in the Senate/Presidency/any leadership role, but not THIS woman." Then the commenter goes on to give a few examples of who he or she would support. Oddly, the support rarely seems to come for the woman who is actually running. Sadly, there never seems to be the right woman at the right time. I am dismayed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Likewise dismayed Posted by: skydog
» RE: Likewise dismayed Posted by: Bibsi
» Freudian Candidate Posted by: newtype_alpha
» It's not sexism Posted by: sliver
If a Democrat doesn't win, it'll be the end of the world
Posted by: Jasonix on Dec 7, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not a big fan of the Democrats. I think both parties are shoulder-deep in big money corruption, and collude more often than debate. But if a Republican wins after the last 8 years, it'll clearly be the end of the world. We'll either have a crook (Rudy) or an apocalyptic religious maniac with a record of administrative incompetence (Huckabee) in the White House. I doubt that either of those fools could even keep the basic mechanisms of government operating, especially if we have more natural disasters or shortages from peak oil.

Hillary needs to appreciate that there's too much at stake for her to push her personal ambition above the good of the nation. Democrat primary voters need to realize that too many people will suffer if they, true to form, vote for someone who appeals to the party faithful but lacks the charisma and appeal to carry the national election. Actually, I wish that most Americans weren't so stupid that they continually voted for either Democrats or Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bushclintonhurtchildren.blogspot.com/
Posted by: DanielleClarke on Dec 7, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://bushclintonhurtchildren.blogspot.com/

BUSH CLINTON HURT CHILDREN GAYS BLACKWAT