THANK YOU!!!

Unfortunately, the argument you make is a bit too sophisticated for most democrats, who just see a black man and a woman. And then they see media reports of the all-powerful "Clinton machine" and assume that the Clintons will be up to the task. Plus, Bill won two elections. That's all people need.

Unless we start seeing some huge discrepancies between Obama/Hillary polls, then the electability card can't be played effectively by Obama. It would also help if Edwards got out of the race, endorsed Obama, and in his endorsement, stated that Hillary didn't have a chance in hell in the general election. Al Gore saying the same thing would also be nice...but I just don't see it happening.

I share this point of view, but just like "9/11 changed everything", don't you think Karl Rove changed everything in presidential politics?  He ran George W. Bush's two campaigns by thumbing his nose at the median voter theorem that we hold so dear.  Turn out your base and depress the rest of the vote. It's an ugly way to win, and Barack Obama offers the promise of transcending that, but Clinton is the fight fire with fire candidate.

one more thing:

Agreed on McCain. He's a great GE candidate. His hawkish act over the last 2 years didn't seem genuine...until the surge got real results. If Americans loath chaos in Iraq, the McCain is the anti-chaos candidate. If Americans loath Bush, the McCain is the anti-Bush Republican. If Americans loath the broken Washington system, then McCain is at least in a good position to run against the system, having passed landmark legislation (legislation that I hate and consider worthless, but nevertheless...).

GOP base turnout will be buoyed by Hillary Clinton's presence on the ballot. That's all they need...for evangelicals, Hillary is LITERALLY the anti-Christ. Or some sign of the anti-Christ's eminent arrival...

People say that Hillary Clinton will run up huge numbers amongst women. But the Democrats already run with a built in gender gap! Frankly, it's hard to see her really building on that gap...I do think that many Republican leaning women will secretly vote for her in the privacy of teh ballot box where their husbands won't know...but the reverse gender gap that she will produce will easily outweigh this...

Boy, these TNR Blogs are so wise and inspiring that they're now being writtenn IN THE FUTURE!!!

Forget Clinton and Obama, Chait. Get into your time machine and tell me who's going to cover the spread in the Super Bowl,

Another reason to dread Hillary, from an "electability" standard: If Bush-fatigued Americans want a new direction, Hillary will be the _only_ Democrat who could plausibly be painted as "more of the same" instead of a new direction. And I don't mean "the only Democrat currently running for president" or "the only nationally known Democrat." I mean, of the 80 million or so adult Americans who identify themselves as Democrats, Hillary is the only one of them who can plausibly be painted as the let's-have-some-more-Bush candidate, thanks to the restorationist nature of her candidacy.

But in a larger sense, thanks to structural advantages, Republicans just don't have to worry about "electability." George W. Bush has never been an "electable' candidate, in the sense of Dubya possessing any set of characteristics that could endear him to any rational American voter. Republicans can nominate the dregs of their party and still start out with a runner on second base. The terrible irony is that Democrats, who enjoy no such structural advantage, need to nominate good candidates even to have chance, but they are absolutely terrible at judging a candidate's potential popular appeal. We don't score unless our leadoff batter hits a triple, but we all seem to think that Cristian Guzman is a tougher batter than Ryan Howard. I mean, some of the otherwise smartest liberals I know have at various times over the last six months cited Kucinich and Gravel (remember his almost-impressive first debate?) as their models of "electable" candidates. Men who, it seems obvious, would lose all 50 states and maybe even the District of Columbia even if Republicans nominated a Cheney-Rumsfeld ticket.

Is there even such an attribute as "electability" in the positive sense? Either there is no such thing, or there is and Democrats as a class are constitutionally unable to detect it. And in either event, any Democrat who speaks about "electability" as a positive attribute on which he is basing or justifying his primary vote is almost certainly a deluded idiot who needs to be slapped upside the head and told to go ask President Kerry for his thoughts about "electability".

It is much easier to identify and quantify the negative attribute of "unelectability," and that's what we should pay attention to. And, as Jonathan points out, unelectability is what Hillary has in droves that Obama doesn't. Maybe Hillary has counterbalancing positive attributes that make it worthwhile to accept her uniquely high degree of unelectability, but there is no sense denying that she suffers from this one particular fault.

It's important to note that many liberal democrats are completely disgusted with the underhanded campaign Hillary has been running (Those robo-calls in Nevada really were despicable).  I've talked to many people who say they will actually vote republican out of protest should she win the nomination.  The only person who's going to splinter a base in 2008 is Hillary Clinton.  Thus the people who think Hillary is going to "turn out the base like Bush did" are completely off the mark.  While Hillary has more support among rank and file democrats, the chunk that supports Obama is going to be furious should she win the nomination. All this talk of post primary harmony is complete hogwash - especially if this primary campaign becomes very drawn out and we are forced to watch her continue with her dirty tactics for months on end.

With all this -- which seems beyond dispute -- the question then is why aren't the TNR folks running a Hillary-phobe blog as you did with Dean? At least Dean would have been a lot of fun in the general election. She and Bill will be complete bores and insufferable narcissists on top of it, and McCain will clobber her.

And the pander-to-your-base strategy works only when your entire base is truly excited by the candidate, as they were with Bush. This most certainly is not true of Hillary. And it helps to have an easily caricatured opponent, which McCain is not. (And, alternatively, Hillary is.)

What we have shaping up, should she win the nomination, is a classic case of a popular Republican nominee, with a history of bucking his own party (earned or not is beside the point), against a smart but extremely limited Democratic establishment candidate. How'd those go in the past?

Jon, I think you are ignoring a huge hole in the unfavorables debate, the trend.  If you look at Clinton’s unfavorable numbers over the course of the past year, there is no change while Obama’s unfavorables have been rising steadily and are now 3x higher than they were a year ago. Both of their favorable ratings are flat. This is in the face of trivial attacks on Obama and withering attacks on Clinton. This supports the conventional wisdom that everyone has a formed opinion on Clinton. If you hated her 10 years ago, you continue to hate her now. You suggest that Clinton’s unfavorables are a harbinger of poor general election performance, while I maintain it is an artifact and possibly a sign of strength. That is, given the state of the divided electorate today, and the nature and strength of modern negative campaigning, most if not all candidates will end up at or around that 45-50% unfavorable rating in the end.  The artifact lies in assuming that her unfavorables will continue to rise while ignoring that the reason they are so high now because she has essentially been under general election scrutiny since 1991. The strength of this is the ceiling. It is like shorting a stock and knowing that is can’t go below a certain number. Obama, could have a lower ceiling, but it will almost certainly be as high or higher. Look at what happened to Kerry 4 years ago as an example. His baseline unfavorable rating was about 15% in January 2004 and climbed steadily to peak at 47% just before the election. There are obvious differences between Kerry and Obama. Kerry’s favorable ratings were much lower, and Obama would be hard-pressed to run a worse campaign, but ultimately, his unfavorables will continue to rise, and I maintain they will rise with ease.

Eweiss raises some interesting issues regarding unfavorable numbers.

First.  Obama's unfavorables were bound to go up within the last year, because he is now a national candidate, and the 'Obama is a Muslim' smears did not exist last year at this time (merely as one example of the change in his coverage).  So a bit of the slime machine, propagated by whoever you would like to finger for the job, is now in swing against him.  Thus, the change in his numbers.  Not surprising.

Second, you argue that Senator Clinton's unfavorables will not grow.  I would disagree, as disaffected Obama voters begin to see the Clintons as willing to destroy a fellow Democrat if it means that they will get the nomination, her unfavorables will begin to rise.  How many blogs and discussion lists have begun to show an extreme dislike for the Clinton's Rovian style tactics these last few weeks.  Those numbers have not yet appeared in her national unfavorable numbers.  When they do, she may well begin to head north of 50%, and that is not a winning general election strategy.

Third, yes Obama's unfavorable numbers will rise, but not to the extent that Senator Clinton's numbers will fly off the charts if stalwart Democrats think that she is more interested in winning than leading the Party to some greater victory.

Fourth, the Republicans are not likely to wage as much of a Rovian style campaign this time around, as they clearly understand that scorched-earth tactics may win the elections, but do not provide the kind of numbers to actually govern.  They will wage tough campaigns, mayhap even dirty, but not in the Atwater-Rove league.

The Clintonistas may scoff and kvetch about Obama's pointing to Reagan, but Reagan did one thing that neither Clinton nor Bush was able to do - create a movement within the country to completely reshuffle the legislative deck in his favor.  Bill had no coattails.  Bush's were there in 2002 and 2004 (although I would call those fear and war induced, more than Bush-centric) but they imploded in 2006.  Clinton might win, but the deadlock and intrenched bitterness will remain.  

Lastly, the more that Bill inserts himself into the race, the more the country begins to remember the soap opera that his Presidency represents.  The glow of the golden-age of the 90's economy will only illuminate so much,  and will soon fade as people start to wonder if they really want to go through all of that again.  This doesn't help Senator Clinton's unfavorable numbers at all.

I'm a Rightist who likes Obama, the man.  I disagree with almost all his policies, but think he's a decent and worthy person.  I believe he actually has principles he believes in besides his own political advancement.

As to Hillary, I actually think if she won the WH, she would be far less likely than Obama to retreat from Iraq.  Because she's basically an imperious personality, she's much more likely to "stay the course" in Iraq for her entire tenure than Obama.    A policy I back.

That said, Hillary is a liar and a hypocrite.  Just take the Iraq issue alone.  She voted for the invasion, either a) because she believed in it, or b) because she felt it was a necessary vote to maintain her viability for a presidential run in '08.  

Then, when running for the nomination in '07-08, she disavows that vote.  And comes up with some non-credible tapdance about why.

Contrast that with John McCain who has backed down from his immigration stance.  But, on the perfectly honest grounds that his base disagrees mightily with him and he is deferring to their wishes.  That is integrity.

the flat fact is, and I don't understand why many Democrats are still blind ot it, is that the Clintons are for the Clintons.  When they were in the White House, they were ruled and did rule, almost soley by the polls.  Rare, rare was the time when they faced down popular opinion for what they thought was right.

Contrast that to the reviled current President Bush, who has steadfastly maintained his policy in Iraq, even when some in his own party turned on  him.  Even when he lost both houses of the Congress.

You may hate his position.  You may call him stubborn.  But, you can't say he's been sticking his finger in the wind for 7+ years.

The Clintons are dishonest.  They are unworthy.  They lack any integrity, or what is popularly called "class".  Other than that, they're perfect.

My bottom line point is to agree with those here who ask, how can Hillary win when even in her own party she is widely and deeply disliked?

As a Rightist partisan, I much prefer to face the Clintons in November.  (It's funny how as up to 20 million illegals invade from Latin America, we now find ourselves in a south American style election with the questionably qualified wife of a former presidente in major contention.)

Jon Chait sez:

"That said, the available data here is not very ambiguous. Hillary Clinton is a highly unpopular figure. In the last Gallup survey, 50% of respondents have a favorable view of her, and 46% negative. Sometimes her averages goes higher, but sometimes it veers into negative territory. Obama has very high ratings. In the most recent poll, 59% view him favorably, 32% negatively. "

Dear Jon:

You should listen to Ezra and Kevin because they are obviously wiser than you are. Why do you think Hillary's negatives are so high and Obama's are STILL relatively low? Simple: The GOP have been after Hillary for the last 15 years, while Obama has yet to face real scrutiny, either from the press or the GOP smear machine. Ezra had a powerfully argued piece over at TAPPED that is a must read by anyone who wishes to engage in the sort of speculation about "electability" that would use approval rating as a crtiterion. The key quote from that piece is: "At this point in the 2004 cycle, John Kerry's unfavorables were between 13% and 20% -- by the time the election rolled around, he was in the mid-40s, posting numbers pretty comparable to Hillary's." Why? Because he'd been swiftboated, as Obama is sure to be, in one form or another, if he is the Dem nominee!!

Here's the link to Ezra's piece: www.prospect.org/.../tapped_archive

but it is short enough to where I can provide the whole thing here:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"HOW POLARIZING IS HILLARY?

The question of whether Hillary Clinton is uniquely polarizing is actually pretty hard to answer. For instance: The metric you use matters quite a lot. If you're going by how many voters "definitely would not" vote for her, she's less polarizing than John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney. But some say that number is a function of name recognition -- that folks are sure they won't vote for candidates they don't know. So if you're going by favorability numbers, then Clinton's 44% unfavorable is fairly high. But that may just mean she's further along in a process that any high profile Democrat will undergo. At this point in the 2004 cycle, John Kerry's unfavorables were between 13% and 20% -- by the time the election rolled around, he was in the mid-40s, posting numbers pretty comparable to Hillary's.

So that's the question: Not whether Hillary Clinton is more polarizing right this second. Given that everyone knows who she is, that simply has to be true. But whether she'll be more polarizing than John Edwards after eight months of haircut and hedge fund smears, or Barack Obama, after an election full of madrassa insinuations. Clinton's numbers probably reflect the end point of that process -- she's been smeared with maximum energy and efficiency for 15 years now. Edwards and Obama haven't, but if either captures the nomination, the GOP's attack machine will boot up, and do to them exactly what it did to John Kerry. If someone has an argument for why, at the end of that political war, they'll be less polarizing than Clinton, than that's a fair comparison. But the current numbers are not.

--Ezra Klein

Posted by Ezra Klein on October 22, 2007 11:57 AM | Permalink"

----------------------------------------------------------

Since your basic premise clearly rests on shaky grounds, the whole edifice is probably just as shaky and would collapse under scrutiny. I think that Ezra and Kevin knew something that you did not, and after eating crow for declaring Hillary "toast", maybe it is time to get out of the fortune-telling business, no?   The only maddening thing here is how the media-types won't ever learn that it is the voters, and not pundits, who decide who is "electable"

kgrant1054  said:

"Second, you argue that Senator Clinton's unfavorables will not grow.  I would disagree, as disaffected Obama voters begin to see the Clintons as willing to destroy a fellow Democrat if it means that they will get the nomination, her unfavorables will begin to rise.  How many blogs and discussion lists have begun to show an extreme dislike for the Clinton's Rovian style tactics these last few weeks."

I think that you are perhaps over-estimating how high Hillary's negatives can go. She is already a known quantity and as such, I believe that pretty much everyone who dislikes her has been counted in her current negatives. Obama, on the other hand, has yet to be "defined" for the public  by the Atwater/Rove smear machine so that his negatives still have a lot of room to grow. The whole premise of this argument for "electability" is flawed in that it is comparing apples and oranges. Hillary negatives are those of someone who has been scrutinized thoroughly over 15 years, whereas Obama's are those of someone who's been treated with a kid's gloves...

I just went back read the other commenters posts and see that EWEISS had made exactly the same points that I just made with respect to Hillary so-called high unfavorables... I hope I was able to reinforce the point.

Hillary's political career also shows that she's the only candidate in the race who gets *stronger* as people attack her.  We can count on the Republicans to overplay their hand if she becomes the nominee, and whether or not she can make uncommitted independent people love her, she certainly seems able to turn voters off her adversaries when they go negative on her -- even when those adversaries are more charismatic Democrats.  Considering that roughly half of the Republican base will already be disgusted with their own nominee by the time they've chosen one, running an anti-Hillary campaign is just going to add independents to the list of people who won't vote for the GOP.

I'm not saying it won't be closer than it would be with another candidate, but it still won't be close enough for the Republicans to win the election.  And since I think Hillary would be the best president of the current crop, I'm comfortable shaving a few points off the victory margin.

If Hillary is the nominee, Obama will have no choice but to support her and campaign for her, hard, whether he gets the veep nod (which I doubt) or not.  The man has serious ambitions and wouldn't want to be blamed for splintering the base after 8 years of Bush -- it's not the sort of thing that goes unnoticed (I mean, Ted Kennedy came back in '84, right?).  [Interestingly, the same doesn't hold true for Hillary and Bill on the other side of the coin if Obama's the nominee:  this is their last, best shot.]

But the larger point is this:  why don't we admit this whole game of political predictions -- especially of using poll numbers to bolster a case for an election that's still ten months away -- is baloney anyway?  I remember back in '91 when none of the major national figures in the Democratic Party bothered throwing their hat in the ring because GHW Bush had approval ratings in the 80s after the first Iraq war.  There was a hilarious SNL segment about it, with Bentsen arguing he was too old for the job, Cuomo admitting he was seriously mobbed up, and Tipper Gore standing in for Al, who'd taken the kids to a gay sex show.  The initial front-runners, as I recall, were some boring dude with cancer and a name no one could pronounce, not to mention some wacky California dude.  No one thought much of the Boy from Hope.

So let's remember that 10 months is a long, long time, and things change.  At the end of the day, the question becomes:  who will best blend appeal to independents and swing voters with effective machine politics that brings out the base?  And on this, honest people can disagree.  I for one think Obama's negative numbers will skyrocket if he's dealing with Rovian smears and continues making these kind of nickel-and-dime freshman mistakes (calling Reagan his inspiration on the eve of an election determined largely by union support, for example, or stating he'll gladly meet w/ all the pariah leaders of the world -- I bet the RNC  already has the ad produced and ready to go).

You talk about Hillary's 2000 numbers but not 2006:  she's won over a lot of people here in New York, and I think that, just by being normal (whatever normal is for her), and not the witchy wildebeest she's often described as, she has the potential to exceed expectations.  Obama, exceed expectations?  What would that mean?  He walks on water?  Cures leprosy?  Or just blows his trumpet... and the walls come crashing down...

Just wanted to put my two cents in for those who think that Hillary's negatives can't grow. I have only ever voted for Democrats in presidential elections. I voted for Hillary for Senate. When Hillary first entered the presidential race I supported her. I moved to Obama, but still thought I'd be happy to support her if she happened to win. In the past few weeks, however, she has so alienated me with distortion of Obama's statements, race-baiting, pandering,  and whole the campaign's sleaziness that I am, as of now, planning to vote for Bloomberg in the general. Or write someone in.

My husband is with me on this, and I imagine if we feel this way, we're not the only ones. I'm sure lots of Obama supporters feel the same way (and he's getting at least a third of the vote in each primary, so that's a huge part of the base).

To those who say the only reason that Obama's negatives aren't exactly as high as hers is because he has not yet faced the Republican attack machine: that argument depends on the fact that the only reason people dislike Hillary is because of what Republicans say about her. My liking of her survived the GOP attacks. It did not survive her own actions in this primary campaign.

dcshungu:

They've only just begun to attack Hillary Clinton!!! To say that she can't go any higher in negative ratings is incredibly naive. She's not a terribly talented politician (she's a smart person, but not a great politician). How low can she go? We'll find out! I'd say she could hit 60% unfavorable by the time the election is over...

I  understand that this may well label me as beyond the pale, but I have the sense that the Clinton machine will, in the end, 'define' Obama in ways that would make Atwater/Rove proud.  If Obama actually makes it to the general election, he will see nothing new.  The Republicans may well simply recycle the talking points that the Clintons used.  They may be a bit more hamfisted in the way they use the material, but it will be the same tropes: Drugs, race, inexperience, flip-flopping, Rezco, 'Obama is a secret Muslim', hope as painfully naive, etc.  My guess is that the Republicans won't hammer him on the mention of Reagan and his governing coalition, but then again, you never know.  Honestly, what would the Republicans do that differs dramatically from what we have already seen?

As for the issue of Senator Clinton's negatives? The negatives will increase in precisely the area I suggested - Democrats and Independents who may have had a positive sense of her as a person and a candidate before the election cycle began, but have become disgusted by her strategy on the trail.

As far as the general, I simply don't see a lot of Independents breaking her way if the Republicans run any kind of center-right campaign (by McCain or even Romney - who have both swung to the right for the primaries, but will swing back to the center for the general).  

dcshungu, ha ha ha haha. funny post. Oh, you mean you are serious? In that case HA HA HA HA HA. I liked Hillary last year, was happy she was in the Senate, but will now never vote for her. Talk to Obama supporters and see how many feel that same way and then say she can still win. Whistling past the graveyard my friend won't win the election.

"That so many Democrats think this question is complicated suggests to me that maybe people aren't good at assessing the popularity of their co-partisans."

If the assumption is that you automatically carry the base as hardcore liberals have no where else to go - assuming that Bloomberg doesn't run if Obama is the nominee, which is, in itself, an overpowering reason to wish Obama as the nominee - then Obama's clear, indisputable appeal to independents makes him, unquestionably, the most "electable" candidate. Ditto for Mc Cain.

The only reason this is being debated is because pundits have to fill server space everyday.

The one amazing fact about Hillary, I can't come up with a single major Democrat presidential candidate since 1900, who was as reviled in their own party as is Hillary.

It's possible Henry Wallace could have had something akin to this at the beginnings of the Cold War when he seemed to lean towards the Soviets.  But, I don't think that was the case.

Was Stevenson polarizing?  Hubert Humphrey, even as LBJ's VP running for president?  I mean, here negatives are unprecedented.  

Meanwhile, it's ridiculous to blame all this on the GOP attack machine.  Bill Clinton has taken more hits by far than Hillary on that score, and against all desert, he's still beloved in the Dem Party.

No, give Hillary credit, boys and girls.  If a lot of her own party loeathes her, she earned it mainly on her own.

There is a dimension of the favorable/unfavorable polling that the Hillary supporters repeatedly ignore.  Most polls break down unfavorables into "strongly unfavorable" and "mildly unfavorable," but the newspaper articles or TV news accounts accompanying the polls lump all unfavorables together.  Hillary's "strong" unfavorables swamp everyone's, while Obama's are always the lowest.  In other words, of those who have an unfavorable view of Hillary, a majority describe their dislike as trong, whereas of those who have an unfavorable of view of Obama, a majority describe their dislike as mild.  Furthermore, Hillary's strong unfavorables do go up whenever she is in the news more -- as in all of last year.  And to those who say that Kerry's unfavorables were driven up by Repub attacks, you ignore that, at the absolute height of Kerry's unfavorables, they were not as high as Hillary's unfavorables.  

Finally, a recent USA Today/Gallup poll had 62 percent of Republicans, given a choice of saying that they would feel "excited," "pleased," "disappointed," or "afraid" about a Hillary presidency,  said "afraid," the lowest rating.  That was by far the most polarizing figure of any candidate.  Obama drew the "afraid" response from only 30%.  In contrast, the Republican that the most Dems said they were "afraid" of is Rudy Giuliani at 29, followed closely by Romney at 27%.  Consistent with Jon Chait's thesis, McCain had the lowest "afraid" number, and we all know he's the most electable Republican.  

So I agree with Jon.  It's not even close.  Hillary will have the most trouble winning.  Obama will have less trouble winning and could even win in a landslide.  The best Hillary does is keep the Kerry states and grab Ohio (finally) in another gut-wrenching 51-49 election.  Down ticket Dems will suffer, and nothing will get through Congress, which will have slimmer Dem majorities.

There is a dimension of the favorable/unfavorable polling that the Hillary supporters repeatedly ignore.  Most polls break down unfavorables into "strongly unfavorable" and "mildly unfavorable," but the newspaper articles or TV news accounts accompanying the polls lump all unfavorables together.  Hillary's "strong" unfavorables swamp everyone's, while Obama's are always the lowest.  In other words, of those who have an unfavorable view of Hillary, a majority describe their dislike as trong, whereas of those who have an unfavorable of view of Obama, a majority describe their dislike as mild.  Furthermore, Hillary's strong unfavorables do go up whenever she is in the news more -- as in all of last year.  And to those who say that Kerry's unfavorables were driven up by Repub attacks, you ignore that, at the absolute height of Kerry's unfavorables, they were not as high as Hillary's unfavorables.  

Finally, a recent USA Today/Gallup poll had 62 percent of Republicans, given a choice of saying that they would feel "excited," "pleased," "disappointed," or "afraid" about a Hillary presidency,  said "afraid," the lowest rating.  That was by far the most polarizing figure of any candidate.  Obama drew the "afraid" response from only 30%.  In contrast, the Republican that the most Dems said they were "afraid" of is Rudy Giuliani at 29, followed closely by Romney at 27%.  Consistent with Jon Chait's thesis, McCain had the lowest "afraid" number, and we all know he's the most electable Republican.  

So I agree with Jon.  It's not even close.  Hillary will have the most trouble winning.  Obama will have less trouble winning and could even win in a landslide.  The best Hillary does is keep the Kerry states and grab Ohio (finally) in another gut-wrenching 51-49 election.  Down ticket Dems will suffer, and nothing will get through Congress, which will have slimmer Dem majorities.

this, of course, also does not take into account a possible Bloomberg run which seems will happen if Hillary winning the nomination and not Obama. Bloomberg will run to the left of Hillary on everything but Israel, killing her on two fronts. Florida will then be out of reach, for starters. But I guess none of this matters, Hillary is the new Truman, yeah. She will win, yeah. It happened once before so why not now? Doesn't everyone realize we need Hillary to save us (where she was 4 years ago to save us is another question, I suppose 31 years of public service wasn't enough)

epicciuto

Your "argument" that boils down to the notion that "because she has lost the support of you and your husband, that shows that her negatives could still go up", is no argument et all.  For all we know, another couple somewhere has already replaced you and your husband as Hillary supporters... That you and your husband have abandoned Hillary proves nothing at all regarding whether or not her negatives would grow. Think of NH. Despite having been counted out in NH, Hillary managed to put together a winning coalition in just 5 days during which she was being savaged in the media. Moreover, there might be some people who, though they are not supporting Hillary, do not feel any animosity toward her. You are an example. You just said that you'd vote her if she is the nominee, although she has now lost your support...  

LDuncan, how dare you come up with facts to support your opinion? don't you know that Hillary will win by one vote and then go on to save America from itself? Hillary will win the nomination so get over it, and I am positive you will vote for her even if you hate her because you secretly need her, want her, crave her, and love her. Hillary is the mirror the baby boom generation holds up to itself, entitled, arrogant, and always ever so right. Hillary is America's haemorrhoid, and you know you just have to scratch it.

virginiacentrist  said:

"They've only just begun to attack Hillary Clinton!!!"

LOL. Welcome to earth! Were you in outer space during the past 15 years, including right after the 2008 Iowa caucuses? Did you miss the apology by one Chris Matthews of MSNBC -- the epitome of Hillary's detractors in the MSM --  who was forced by his employers to be nice because he had clearly gone over board? Did you hear that Hillary had driven one Vince Foster to suicide in the 90s? Do you know that several unflattering books have been written about her in which they have called her all kinds of mean thins?

Your statement is simply laughable, and I am sorry to have even wasted the time to point that out.

kgrant1054  said:

"I  understand that this may well label me as beyond the pale, but I have the sense that the Clinton machine will, in the end, 'define' Obama in ways that would make Atwater/Rove proud.  If Obama actually makes it to the general election, he will see nothing new.  The Republicans may well simply recycle the talking points that the Clintons used."

Naivete characterizes a typical Obama supporter. The Clintons have not done or said anything that has been beyond the pale. There have been a few really mean statements made by a handful of overzealous Hillary supporters, but she dismissed them quickly. But strangely enough,  we are yet to see anyone in Obama's camp (e.g., Jesse Jackson Jr.) lose their job because of unacceptable statements. If you think that the tame stuff that the Clintons have thrown at Obama is anywhere near what the Repub smear machine is sure to dump on him if he is nominated, you'd better stop drinking the kool-aid right about now. You ain't seen nothing yet! IMHO, the only candidate who is sure to lose this election for the Dem is Obama...He is vulnerable to GOP attacks on too many fronts. In fact, the whining about the Clinton camp's purported "dirty tricks" against Obama is proof that he is not ready for the big leagues. He would be a terrible candidate to field in the GE, precisely because he seems to be unable to deal with the tame stuff that has been thrown at him so far. He whined about 527 groups airing POSITIVE ads for Edwards in Iowa; whined that Hillary's historically accurate statement on MLK's and LBJ's respective roles in achieving civil rights progress in the mid-60s was race-baiting, before backtracking when he realized that he'd lose for sure if this contest became racially polarized and he was perceived as the "black candidate."  Well, I could go on, but you get my drift...Only those who've drunk too much of the Obama kool-aid would fail to see the many dangers of nominating him...

ChanRobt  said:

"The one amazing fact about Hillary, I can't come up with a single major Democrat presidential candidate since 1900, who was as reviled in their own party as is Hillary."

More mindless jeremiads by a kool-aid drinker, but I'll take a link to where I might find credible evidence in support of your assertion. In fact, if what you just said were true, Hillary would not be leading Obama 2 wins to 1. Who were the people who voted for her in NH and NV? They sure weren't Indies or Repubs because we know that they went for Obama. The answer: Rank-and-file Dems have put Hillary over Obama in two contests, including one in which they helped her pull a rabbit out of the hat when the MSM had already written her off...

Hillary winning the nomination would conclusively prove your statement to he nonsensical [which it is], and I hope you would have the decency to come back here and apologize...

A couple of days ago I received an outrageous "Obama is a closet terrorist" type of email.  This is the second virulently anti-Obama email I have received recently.  These are actually part of a series of psychotic right-wing emails (Forwarded to me by the same naive person) that I have received over the past couple of years.  They definitely have not emanated from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

In other word, right-wingers are already viciously attacking Obama.

well there sure is some disagreement here. there are terrific arguments to be made about who might be more electable and why, but the bottom line is that Hillary will probably still win the nomination and thus will probably still win the general. at least that's what the people speaking with their checkbooks say at Intrade. The fun part will be dissecting it all. She sure is good for that.

dcshungu: Channy, a Kool aid drinker. good lord, have you lost your mind? He is our Republican partisan  here at TNR so what in the world would he have to apologize for? Say what you want about the guy but he is surely not an Obamaite. That is the problem with many Hillary supporters, they refuse to acknowledge reality and see things as they want to see them. Channy being an Obama Kool aid drinker is just delusional. Since you are so informed can you tell me what Hillary's plan is on Social Security? This is a major issue and for the life of me I have no idea what her policy is, I can't find it on her website anywhere.

Honestly though, you gotta take off the Hillary colored glasses. Not everyone who criticizes Hillary here is an Obama supporter, we have had more than our share of Edward's supporters, and McCain supporters, as well as a few Rudy ones. It is you who owe Channy a major apology for what he can take as a serious insult and a serious misreading of just who he is.

And speaking as a longtime Democrat I can tell you Hillary is reviled by far too large of a Democratic segment. Look around here and you can see for yourself how many professed Democrats refuse to vote for her. We won't win with her base. 2 to 1 Democrats, zero Republicans, and few independents means Republican rout. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think it will be a rout, but she will most likely lose especially if Bloomberg gets in.

And why don't you address that issue either?

I will say one thing in defense of Hillary having a chance to win and it is really the only one I can see. On voting day millions of Republican women who profess to be Republicans through and through, and independents, will vote for Hillary in droves as payback and sexual solidarity. If I were convinced of that, than 90% of my reservations about Hillary will fade away since in that case it would truly herald in a new era  of politics, with (forgive the gross term but the p's go together) pussy power prevailing. It would scare the hell out of all the male congressmen. And mean she would have a chance of effectively governing.

blackton  said:

"dcshungu: Channy, a Kool aid drinker. good lord, have you lost your mind? He is our Republican partisan  here at TNR so what in the world would he have to apologize for? Say what you want about the guy but he is surely not an Obamaite. That is the problem with many Hillary supporters, they refuse to acknowledge reality and see things as they want to see them. Channy being an Obama Kool aid drinker is just delusional. Since you are so informed can you tell me what Hillary's plan is on Social

Security? This is a major issue and for the life of me I have no idea what her policy is, I can't find it on her website anywhere."

Re-read my post. It just said s/he's a kool-aid drinker and I did not specify which kind as I was not sure...But hasn't Obama been drinking quite a bit of Repub kool-aid lately?

- He wants to "fix" SS, so does Bush and the GOP

- He thinks that Reagan was the greatest, so do all the Repubs

- He thinks that the Repubs had all the good ideas in the last 15 years, Newt Gingrich agrees.

- He thinks that mandates to ensure universal health coverage are a bad idea, the Repubs agree

- He thinks that the UN is a useless "world" body, Gearge Will and Bush agree

You get the idea. I would not be shocked is your Channy was caught  drinking some of that Obama kool-aid...It'd stay like that which s/he is used to drinking...

blackton  said:

"Since you are so informed can you tell me what Hillary's plan is on Social Security? This is a major issue and for the life of me I have no idea what her policy is, I can't find it on her website anywhere."

I HAD ALREADY RESPONDED TO YOUR CONTINUING REQUESTS ABOUT HILLARY'S POSITION ON SS ( I'VE JUST CUT AND PASTED MY PREVIOUS REPLY BELOW...FOR THE LAST TIME):

blackton  said:

"Hey Tullius, you seem pretty well informed. What is Hillary's plan for Social Security? Any idea? I know Obama's (tax earning after 200k but leave a hole from 100 to 200) Hillary called this a middle class tax hike, but I have no idea of her own plan. But hey, why should she actually address the issues, she is married to Bill and he will fix it all for her."

and scrubbyoak echoed:

"blackton-  Don't hold your breath waiting for your question on Hillary's social security to be answered. It ain't coming. Tullius is a reasonable guy, but he can't answer what he doesn't know. Nobody knows. Heck, I doubt that even Hillary herself knows."

Here you go again showing your ignorance in an age when information on any subject can be easily obtained! Hillary and Social Security, my comments followed by her key quotes:

(1) There is no urgency to "fix" SS because it is perhaps the only government program that is doing well (which is why Bush and the GOP, and now Obama, want to "fix" it):

Hillary: "Don't you believe all these people running around crying wolf about Social Security. That is exactly what they're doing. They're trying to get people confused and upset and agree to a bad deal."'

(2) Because there is no urgency to "fix" SS, Hillary's CONSISTENT position has been that as president, she would appoint a bipartisan commission, a la 1983 Reagan/Tip O'Neill, to study ways to short up  the program to ensure that it will continue to be solvent:

Hillary: "But I am strongly advocating a bipartisan process, similar to what we had in '83, and when that gets set up, as I hope it will be when I'm president, then I'm going to see what the bipartisan members are going to come up with."

Paul Krugman agreed with Hillary:

"Yeah, Social Security, if you go through the federal government, piece-by-piece, and ask which programs are seriously under-funded and which are close to being completely funded, Social Security is one of the best. It's not even for certain that Social Security has a problem. Why on earth - and, of course, it's something that the right has always wanted to kill, not because it doesn't work, but because it does. And for Obama to go after this program, at this time, you just have to wonder. All of my progressive friends are saying what on Earth is going through his mind to raise this issue."

As for Obama's so-called position on the SS "crisis", he was for the bipartisan approach advocated by Hillary before he was against it and deciding that SS needs to be "fix":

Not so long ago, Barack Obama agreed too. Here's Obama on May 14:

 " Everything should be on the table. I think we should approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came together. I don't want to lay out my preferences beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a problem as we're going to have with Medicaid and Medicare."

As The Washington Post's Dan Balz reported:

"Barack Obama has spent the past few days calling out Hillary Clinton on Social Security. What has gotten much less attention is that Obama has changed his position on what to do about the government retirement system's financial problems."

----------------

If you still have questions about Hillary's position on SS, you can find it, just as I did by Googling, at

facts.hillaryhub.com/archive

January 20, 2008 7:48 AM

Yes, Hillary will probably be nominated, and yes, she'll probably win the general, because so many people will vote for *any* Democratic candidate.  These are desperate times.  But those strong negatives won't go away, and she'll be extremely unpopular going in and, barring one or two large PR miracles, she'll remain extremely unpopular for as long as she's in office.  What a very unpleasant prospect.  

dschungu-  You wrote:

- He thinks that Reagan was the greatest, so do all the Repubs

Are you. Effing. Kidding me?  Really?  You are recycling that trope.  What Obama said, and what every single sentient human being who hasn't tied themselves to Hillary understands, is that he admires Ronnie for bringing Repubs and traditional Dems together.   And he thinks a successful Democratic President will have to do that.  He or she will have to be able to sell his or her plans to the whole country, not the most narrowly-segmented focus groups, like our Presidents have been doing for about 16 years.   It is beyond the pale- and beyond reprehensible- that you could still be peddling that bullshit.  

Only a total kool-aid drinker like the Tiger Beat-level enthusiast channy would buy such a ridiculous notion.  

dcshungu, You must be working for the Clintons.

scrubbyoak  said:

"dcshungu, You must be working for the Clintons."

LOL. I am just a concerned citizen who tries to learn as much as I can about the candidates' positions on issues, as well as about their personal experience, records, and other traits that qualify them to be POTUS. I have no connection to any of the campaigns but I have determined that Hillary is the Dem's best choice. In real life, I am an Associate Professor of Radiology (MRI Physics) at two Ivy League Medical Schools in NYC.

BTW, I assume that you saw my post on HRC's Social Security position that you'd asked about...

About HRC's negatives not growing:

Well they grew in me from "of course if she gets the nomination I will vote for her" to "I will vote for ANY republican candidate if she is the Dem nominee". I do not believe I am the only one. I'm not even torn anymore. And that blows my mind.

yeah, so hillary will appoint a commission to solve social security, and you call that leading? that is pathetic. and to say social security is working great is just insane. did you ever hear of the baby boom?

no question, the Hillary supporters here are doing Hillary a real disservice by convincing people not to vote for her by being both incredibly condescending and blind to her very real faults.

A freakin commission is not leading, it is just passing the buck. Obama at least has a position, one I agree with (raise the cap on earnings to include incomes after 200k). That is leading. making commissions is not.

In my post yesterday, I made the point that just as it's perfectly obvious to most Democrats (but

From a life long resident of upstate New York:  You can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting someone who once swore they'd never vote for Hillary but now think she's a great senator.

That's reality not punditry.

MATCHING UP AGAINST McCAIN....Is Barack Obama incontestably a better candidate than Hillary Clinton in a general election matchup against John McCain? A couple of days ago Jon Chait called my insistence on questioning this conventional wisdom "maddening

The New York Times just posted their endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president. Two quick thoughts

Via Andrew Sullivan, it seems that Jeffrey Hart, the iconic conservative of Dartmouth Review and National