I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I'm sure that in another time and another place she'd make a dandy president. It's just that I don't think two families should control the White House for - the better part of three decades. It's just not right. The world needs a break from the Bush dynasty but not in the form of a Clinton dynasty.
Okay, having gotten that out of the way, Hillary seems to be tanking, fast. Not only do a lot of American voters not like her (50% have already said they would never, ever vote for Hillary - nohow, no way) but her support in Iowa seems to be sliding with the primary just five weeks away.
A poll conducted by (or on behalf of) the Des Moines Register found Clinton staring Obama eye to eye, a statistical dead heat.
The poll sent Hillary's people into a tizzy. They got up this morning, brushed their teeth and proceeded to gnash away at Obama. I mean it got really petty. From the New York Times:
...the Clinton campaign accused Mr. Obama of “re-writing history” by saying that he had not been planning for years to run for president like “some of the other candidates.” The campaign included news articles and statements of friends or relatives of Mr. Obama saying that he had been thinking of running for president for at least a decade.
Don't the Clintonistas realize just how cheesy that sounds? I think she just upped her "sooner burn in Hell than vote for Clinton" demographic another two, maybe three percent.
Okay, having gotten that out of the way, Hillary seems to be tanking, fast. Not only do a lot of American voters not like her (50% have already said they would never, ever vote for Hillary - nohow, no way) but her support in Iowa seems to be sliding with the primary just five weeks away.
A poll conducted by (or on behalf of) the Des Moines Register found Clinton staring Obama eye to eye, a statistical dead heat.
The poll sent Hillary's people into a tizzy. They got up this morning, brushed their teeth and proceeded to gnash away at Obama. I mean it got really petty. From the New York Times:
...the Clinton campaign accused Mr. Obama of “re-writing history” by saying that he had not been planning for years to run for president like “some of the other candidates.” The campaign included news articles and statements of friends or relatives of Mr. Obama saying that he had been thinking of running for president for at least a decade.
Don't the Clintonistas realize just how cheesy that sounds? I think she just upped her "sooner burn in Hell than vote for Clinton" demographic another two, maybe three percent.
The latest Zogby poll found the biggest difference between Clinton and either Obama or Edwards is that she couldn't beat any of the five leading Republican candidates but her Democratic rivals could beat them all.
Can Hillary bounce back? I expect if anyone can it's her. Still I think she's got a limited shelf life and her best before date may not go to November.
Can Hillary bounce back? I expect if anyone can it's her. Still I think she's got a limited shelf life and her best before date may not go to November.
5 comments:
Times are far to volatile and it wouldn't be a good idea to take a chance in a non-experienced person.
I read an article today (US paper) of the achievements Hilliary has made.
Obama has done very much in senate - according to his record.
Edwards - no successes or contribution when he was in senate.
Whoops - meant to say Obama hasn't done all that much while in senate.
Hilliary's accomplishments including non-partisan work is unbelievable - she's a worker all right.
I understand your point, Anon. I don't have any difficulty accepting Clinton's strengths. It's that I don't want a second, consecutive US presidential dynasty and I want the Dems to have the best candidate who can ensure enough public support to retake the White House. I just don't believe Hillary can do that and there's too much at stake to take a chance on her with her polling numbers.
YEah someone who was first elected to office two years ago is a much better choice. That is some seriousl,y simplistic reasoning on your part and Clinton is not tanking. There is only one polling company that has done any polls for the last two and a hlf weeks, Rasmussen, and they are averaged over three nights tracking polls. She went up 4% from yesterdays poll release, which means she has gone up 12%. These numbers are highly sensitive to blips, such as Oprah's support or reorts of a plant at the CNN debate, which is probably what has dragged her numbers down over the last week.
No one in the history of the United States has ever lost a nomination with this level of lead over the other candiodates at this stage of the nomination process.
Her support is also, when you read deeper into the polling numbers
much more solid than Obama's by about 90% to 60%, and her demographic is much more likely to come out.
Oh yeah who do you think has the better get out the vote machine? Some one who was first elected two years ago or Clinton????
Newspapers are trying to make up stories that there is actually still any chance that anyone else will win this and there isn't. You have to keep selling papers for the next few months right.
Iowa is not even an issue. Didn't Dean win that last time around? Lot of good that did him.
Iowa wants to feel important, but in the grand scheme really has only had an efffect on the outcome very few times, perhaps with Carter for example, but he may have pulled ahead anyways. More times than not the person who wins Iowa does not go on to win the nomination.
Clinton is the most experienced, the most disciplined, the most untouchable in an election campaign, (she's already been disected), and has the best platform to win the presidential race. She's it.
Well, Anon, at least you wear your heart on your sleeve. You're plainly convinced, I'm not.
Post a Comment