State Of The Race: A Powerful Point For Hillary

Yesterday, I posted my personal views on the "State Of The Race" and got quite a response.

Today, I ran into an interesting survey about Senator Clinton.

Her home state approval rating among Democrats is a remarkable 81%. (And 19% above her fellow Democratic Senator, Chuck Schumer.)

She is as popular among Democrats in her state as Ted Kennedy is here in Massachusetts.

What does this mean?

The more people see her, the more people like. (I believe this is because people are seeing her directly and without the prism of the right wing media.)

Moving forward, it is a potential note of significant strength moving forward.

Stay tuned.

Follow James Boyce on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesboyce

Comments

[splashy]

Funny thing, the Arkansas Young Republicans put out a press release that actually made me feel BETTER about Clinton than I did. I did not know about this before, for instance:

"Sen. Clinton has voted with Liberal Democrats 97.0% of the time in the 110th Congress. By comparison, Mark Pryor has a rate of 86.8%. (Source: Washington Post: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/ )
Voted against the Iraq Supplemental (providing the tools for our troops during the surge). This past weekend, Sen. Clinton told the VFW in Kansas City that the surge was working. Too bad she didn't vote to support it."

Sounds good to me that she has done all that. I was afraid she wasn't liberal enough for me, but it looks like she's alright. Yay, I WANTED to vote for her and feel good about it.

Interestingly, after all the mud they have slung at her, they are pretty much having to resort to recycling it. They are out of ammunition.

[altohone]

New Yorkers seem to be happy to have two pro-war Senators in league with corporate interests and AIPAC. Who woulda thunk?

The country as a whole prefers the Kennedy position... the one espoused by the hundreds of thousands that marched against the war in NYC.

The DLC is fighting for their girl.
I won't buy what they're selling.

[Qbear]

EVERY candidate for president or Congress has a real simple choice in September, do I want feast or famine?
Support for you will surge (so to speak), or become as dry as a California forest. We are OUT of Iraq, with you or without you.

[Qbear]

is = if ....above

[Qbear]

"My Girl"(Hillary)

Would see an immediate plunge in her approval ratings next month, is she changes partners in the BIG September Dance. No one will offer her cab fare, so she'll be walking back home.

Who replaces her as belle of the ball remains to be seen, but I'd wager on Obama, if Hillary slips on the dance floor.

[klondiker]

I know that the left has serious problems with Hillary. And I hear people say all the time that Hillary's a neocon or a republican in disguise.

You can't really believe that, can you? Is there anyone who thinks that there would no difference between a Hillary presidency and a Romney presidency? (think of Iraq, supreme court appointments, America's image around the world, social security)

Once we are committed to electing a Democrat, it seems that Hillary has a good chance to winning in the general.

She's leading all Republicans by 15-20 points in Arkansas! (If she wins everything that Gore did - not even counting Florida - plus Arkansas, she's home).

She can respond to right-wing attacks better than any candidate we have.

Her campaign is the only major campaign not to have made a gaffe so far - dem or repub. People underestimate the importance of campaign organization. She will simply outwork, outmaneveur, and outsmart the republican candidate.

[Pyrum]

I sincerely believe there would be no difference whatsoever between a Hillary presidency and a presidency of any of the republican candidates, with one exception: Ron Paul. It's a moot point anyway, because Ron Paul is THE only republican candidate who can beat her! And I hope he wins the nomination and does just that!

[klondiker]

Think of the Supreme Court appointments that were made this year.

Do you really think there won't be a difference between Romney's or Thompson's nominees and Hillary's nominees??

As for Ron Paul - the only thing I like about him is his committment to ending the war. Other than that, what does he bring to the table?? He would NEVER have universal healthcare; he's pretty much said that he would have no problem shutting down govt services like education and social security.

[kempis]

Klondiker: "Is there anyone who thinks that there would no difference between a Hillary presidency and a Romney presidency? (think of Iraq, supreme court appointments, America's image around the world, social security)"

*****************

I'd like to think not, but, sadly, I'm sure there are. In fact, many have asserted as much here at HuffPo.

I'm not so much worried about the rightwing attack machine as I am the leftwing splitting off and supporting a third party. Shades of Nader 2000.

After all, plenty of Naderites argued that there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Most people would agree that to say Nader supporters were wrong about that is an understatement. And ideologues don't seem to learn from their mistakes, do they?

Arianna and HuffPo need to tread carefully. The Hillary-bashing that's been encouraged here just may come back to haunt us all, say when Giuliani or Thompson is the next president.

[klondiker]

So true.

The people who thought that there is no difference between Bush and Gore - I wonder how they feel now.

Supreme Court appointments alone should convince us that we need a Democrat in the White House.

When the de-segregation ruling came out this year, everyone on HuffPo complained about Alito and Roberts. With a Republican in charge, we're heading down that path again.

[kms34786]

Ms Clinton's biggest issue is that she does not come across well on TV. She seems stiff and impersonal. I think the more contact she has with the electorate in a one on one basis the stronger she will become.

She needs to humanize herself to the people and when she does that she wins. I wouldn't blame the prism through which she is seen on a conservative media, but on an oppositional media that wins whenever there is a horse race, and when there isn't one, they'll try and manufacture it.

[Rowland]

Senator Clinton has been a player on the world stage for 20 years. No doubt recognition of her transcends that of rock stars and plenipotentiaries from the four-corners. The weakness is that celebrity hides the real positions of the candidate from public notice.

She wasn’t mislead by the intelligence and voted to let George Bush start the war, she was supportive of all the actions such as the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act where it became US policy to overthrow Hussein. One must associate Senator Clinton with Operation Desert Fox where we bombed hell out of Iraq.

Ms Clinton should not be talking about being led astray by the Bush Administrations, she had a greatly enhanced opportunity to confront Ms Rice and others about intelligence. Her objection now is that the tactics were wrong. The moral implications of invading Iraq preemptively don’t seem to cross her mind. She opposes Bush’s Iraq policy because it has failed.

With Hillary we will also once again get Madeleine Albright; who famously said to Colin Powell, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

Regarding immigration, Senator Clinton is clear and firm, “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

Ms Clinton speaks well on behalf of those who have arrived. She will continue as a player on the world stage as herself regardless of the official capacity she holds. It is difficult to separate the celebrity from the states-person with her. The Senator’s recent views regarding lobbyist’s campaign contributions is telling. She is, of course, receiving great amounts of money from them because she has arrived. In taking the money she chooses to view lobbyists as public servants and sidesteps the issue that they dominate the wheelhouse on the ship of state.

The American tradition in times of great moment is to follow one who is in the process of becoming rather than being. Does she bring new ideas regarding being a Palestinian/Israeli honest broker? Does she see the danger of an American corporate military leviathan?

[bobsomerby]

"The more people see her, the more people like her. (I believe this is because people are seeing her directly and without the prism of the right wing media.)"

JB raises an interesting point. Few people have been the subject of as many nasty characters attacks, for as long a time, as HRC has. These attacks and narrative are deeply lodged in our mainstream press culture. (Tales of the "Clinton attack machine," for example, which many progressives echo.) Most of this is pure BS, but it keeps getting shoveled at us.

There is no way to measure it, of course. But I often wonder how many of the liberals and progressives who hate HRC so much have largely internalized things they have heard through all these years of nasty right-wing trashings.

Many of these people believed the things they heard about Gore, I might note. Remember when Gore was the world's biggest liar? Those narratives came from the RNC--and they were widely believed.

[kempis]

Excellent points, Bob, and I've wondered the same. The Rightwing has excelled at negatively defining Democrats for about thirty years and has skillfully used the echo chamber provided by a decidedly non-investigative media.

I had deep reservations about Hillary because I remembered how she had stonewalled Ken Starr's Captain Ahab-like investigations and made matters worse. I thought we didn't need another President opposed to transparency in government.

Then the debates began, and I was blown away by her command of facts, her depth of knowledge, and her extraordinary ability to communicate--and even answer the questions. After watching her in the debates thus far, I have no doubt that she'd be an effective president.

But, I worry too that I'm being bamboozled, so to re-gain perspective about her, I've been reading Bernstein's new book on her: _A Woman in Charge_. I'd read that Bernstein didn't write a gauzy, fawning portrayal of her. That's true. He pretty much lays out the massive mistakes she made early on in the Clinton presidency. But--and this is an important "but"--she appears to have learned from those mistakes.

If she continues to convince me that she is not only the most experienced candidate but one who has learned valuable lessons from her experience, lessons that would considerably shorten or even eradicate the dangerous "learning curve" when she takes office, I'll be rooting for her when the primaries come around.

Now, out of all the candidates, I find Obama the most inspiring, and I think that he, too, would make a fine president. It's inevitable, though, that he'll make mistakes, especially early on. I'd hate to see him chewed up and spat out by taking the White House too soon.

Still, if Hillary's campaign doesn't succeed in driving down the negatives, Obama would be more electable in a general election. If that's how things look in December, I'll be advocating for Obama.

In the end, I'll push for whoever can keep the Republicans out of the White House.

[BionicWoman]

Hillary was so far behind in the polls in Iowa that she was advised to skip it all together.

She went to Iowa anyway. Now, after personal time there, she is tied in some polls and ahead in other.

Local newspapers where ever she goes say that people are surprised by her warmth.

I have no worries for her.

[annieb603]

i have seen her twice here in new hampshire, and she improves with each appearance. her demeanor is relaxed, her humor is charming and she speaks eloquently to every issue. her debate performances have all been top-notch. and she isn't getting in the gutter with some of the other candidates (or their wives). i am firmly and permanently camped out in her campaign. :)

[JoeCHI]

Madame President!

[xrayman]

Clinton, in this snapshot of time, is certainly pulling out ahead. Yet, the public is fickle. She may not be leading by 2008.

However, after watching Obama's speech to the VFW on C-Span I remain unimpressed. Watching the pundits on Sunday news programs, they're all impressed by his intelligence, how he talks in sentences and paragraphs, not sound bites. Forget all that, how about Obama just learns how to give a speech without fumbling and bumbling his way through it?

If anyone is going to break through and give Hillary a good competition, it seems to be Obama. He needs to sharpen, not his attack, but his delivery where he can't spit out the words without fumbling.

[kitsapdem]

Yes, Obama is long and boring. I can't listen to him for long. He seems like he's searching for a point when he speaks - can't imagine listening to this guy as Pres for 4-8 years. But I just don't see it happening. He just doesn't have the goods.

[arizona4algore]

Maybe Senator Clinton is ahead in every 'national poll', or in every 'state poll', but she's not ahead everywhere in the universe. Arizona's District 8 Democrats did a Straw Poll Saturday night that gave AL GORE 18 of 35 votes cast for first choice. Read Lesley Wright's article online in the Scottsdale Republic; or, go to algore.org to read it on the Blog. "Al Gore surprise choice for Scottsdale Dems."
The flaw in the polling is that people, who support Al Gore, are too quick to think he won't run, so they are giving their second choice in polls. Send him a picture postcard with this message above your signature: "Please run, Al Gore, Do it for the country. Do it for the world." Honorable Al Gore, 2100 West End Avenue, Suite 620, Nashville TN 37203

[sonofloud]

The people who have a negative view of hillary are mostly republican or members of other right wing groups. They would never vote for a democrat anyway.
Besides, they have slung so much mud at hillary they have nothing left and she has survived it quite well.

[BigTuna]

Um, I'm a left-leaning independent and I can't stand her. Of course the right wing is full of shit. For me, it's mainly because she's just another polished political candidate at a time when the country is in desperate need of a true progressive reformer. The centrist mentality worked fine in the 90's, but that was then and this is now. If we don't seize and capitalize on the current momentum, we're going to end up right back where we are now in a few decades. And frankly, I'm tired of making the same round trip.

[kitsapdem]

Most Dems are going to vote for Hillary, and even the nutroots will vote for her if she gets the nom. The arguments I have heard for Edwards or Obama aren't solid. Edwards has tanked, and Obama is tanking. It looks like Obama got his surge at the beginning, and the beef folks were thinking was there. Wasn't. It's Hillary's to win. Unless something huge comes along - she's the nom. And Obama is not that great of a campaigner to overcome her lead.

[B8ovin]

You may very well be right about Clinton's personal exposure dictating her likability; I can't say one way or the other. But are you really going to adopt the language of the know-nothing right? The "right wing" media? Pshaw! It's the incompetent media we should be focusing on. There is no political agenda. The media gloms onto a Zeitgeist and pursues it, nurtures it and sells it. Remember the sagas of Al Gore the media sold?

[ESerafina42]

I used to believe this - now I'm not so sure. Take the Valerie Plame case, with characters right out of central casting - a dashing diplomat who speaks truth to power, a hot blonde spy betrayed by her own government in the form of a pasty-faced Machiavellian bureaucrat to a journalist who's nicknamed the Prince of Darkness... Well, you get the picture. If all they were after was a good story it seems like they should have glommed onto that. Of course, there wasn't any sex and Valerie Plame is obviously a smart, articulate woman who's in great shape, not wallowing in drugs and booze like Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.

I'm a New Yorker (independent but would be Democratic by default if I _had_ to choose between the two), and although I'm not enthused about Hillary (or anyone else) as the candidate I do have a generally positive impression of her and she appears competent, unlike the Current Occupant. She also hits right back when the right goes after her, which the Democratic candidate will _have_ to do. She learned this from Bill, at least. Apart from my other concerns about Edwards and Obama, I'm afraid that they will be too "nice" - which you can't do with these guys if you want to win. Same with them as VP candidates - the VP is supposed to be the "attack dog," a job which the last two failed miserably at.