NOTE: I'm the Clinton campaign's Internet Director
There's been lots of discussion in recent days about Hillary's poll numbers and I figured I'd share a batch of links that give perspective on where things stand:
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28477 (Excerpt: "A review of Gallup poll data suggests that Hillary Clinton's current high unfavorable ratings are not unprecedented. Other candidates have had similarly high unfavorable ratings at various points in presidential election campaigns in previous years. Two of these candidates -- George W. Bush in 2004 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- went on to win the election. Additionally, Rove's assumptions that Hillary Clinton's candidacy is "fatally flawed" run counter to the historical finding that candidates' images often change, sometimes dramatically, as the campaign progresses.")
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/22/02050/6475 (Jonathan Singer discusses Markos's post about Hillary's strong showing in three red states. Excerpt: "Markos passes on some very interesting polling of registered voters in three Southern states -- one of which that hasn't voted Democratic since 1996, another that hasn't since 1976, and yet another that hasn't since 1964 -- that seriously calls into question the contention by some that Hillary Clinton is not electable in a general election.")
http://georgep.mydd.com/story/2007/8/22/12351/9500 (georgep at MyDD links to Gallup's latest national survey -- with video from Frank Newport analyzing the numbers)
And here's Hillary responding to Rove's attack:
Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou
It's good to see the spin eviscerated in such a fact-based and rational way, for a change.
But you can blame her for having such a bad image. She's been so long in the public eye that she could not possess high negatives without having earned them. If she were deserving of our high regard, she's had plenty of time in which to establish that, but she has failed to make the case, while her record argues otherwise. Folks don't irrationally detest someone they've been watching for 15 years, without a reason for doing so. With a newbie to the scene, you could say "First impressions can be deceiving," "Reserve judgment," etc. Not so with an oldie who has earned widespread contempt -- not as a human being, but as a politician.
All the more so when she daily gives us reasons to think like that. The latest - saying one day the surge is working, then the next day that military methods can't work? Please pass the airsickness bag. I'm sorry, but we're talking about people's lives. Such instances of her bobbing and weaving and vacillating, show that she is either stupid or practically devoid of principles and convictions, and few really think she's stupid.
She talks a good talk on some social issues, like education, medical care, etc. But how can there be any conviction there, when she's consistently supported the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi kids, and wasting our US$$ to do it?
1. I do not trust her, and
2. I do not believe that she brings any substantial difference in policy from the current rascals.
I must honestly say that there are several of the current Republicans who I would vote for if they face Hillary in the general election in 2008. I cannot imagine I am the only Democrat who feels this way, and I am certain that nearly 100% of the Republicans will vote against Hillary. How is it possible that Hillary can get a majority of votes in 2008?
Unfortunately, many of the comments above reflect that Hillary has the same problem Humphrey had -- a lack of enthusiastic support among a significant portion of the Democratic Party base. Unless she can figure out a way to overcome that, if she gets the party's nomination there is a very good chance that her fate will be the same as that suffered by Humphrey.
As first lady of Arkansas she took on education as her issue and in 8 years the state went from 48th to 49th in the nation in education.
Regarding Iraq, does anyone really know where she stands? Look at her latest speech in front of the VFW. She's like a wind chime on the war, chiming strong or soft according to which way the wind blows.
So what am I missing? Where's the beef? Why should I vote for Hillary except as a last resort?
If she wins the nomination her very presence on the ticket will strengthen the GOP. This is the issue and nothing else.
If the GOP wins again (think Giuliani who is farther to the right than Bush)another 8 years could put us in a position from which we could not recover.
This is much more than the presidency, it's about the survival of our country in a form envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Hillary can not be an effective president. The GOP will stonewall every thing she tries to do.
Watch what happens when Bill Clinton's book comes out in September. Hilary's numbers will begin to suffer.
Hilary is electable because the Republicans are trying exceedingly hard to lose. I have never seen Republicans trying harder to lose an election.