Glaring inaccuracy in Newsweek's "Clinton" article from yesterday

[wyldwolf]

I may be truth squading here (and I know that annoys the hell out of some people) but in reference to the article from Newsweek yesterday , something leaped off the screen at me that made me do a little research:

But there’s another transformation that has quietly taken place over the last six years. When Clinton left office, his approval numbers in the Gallup poll were at a low 39 percent in early 2001.

I have to ask what Gallup poll they are referring to? For the period of January 10 -14, 2001, Gallup has Clinton's approval numbers at 66%. His favorability ratings did drop to 39% in early 2001, but there is a major difference between "approval," which typically covers the President's job performance, and "favorability," which covers how people personally feel about the President.

Though his favorability rating has climbed to 60% this year, I believe the distinction between "favorability" and "approval" must be respected.



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

[BootinUp]

1. That 39 number is definitely wrong. I saw that too

and knew it couldn't be right.

[acmejack]

2. And who would be those people that the truth annoys?

Other than perhaps Republicans? Certainly you are not referring to people such as myself as enemies of the truth, since we are frequently on the opposite side of issues? I know that you wouldn't be calling all who do not fall into the DLC camp as opponents of the truth, that surely couldn't be the case this early in the morning?

But thank you, that was much better than a triple espresso raising my blood pressure thirty or forty points!

[wyldwolf]

3. LOL! Feel that way if you must

... but I didn't say the truth annoys people, I said truth squadding does (an insistence on accuracy)... but yeah, some of you do get your panties in a wad whenever an inconvenient fact contradicts an otherwise hate-filled diatribe.

[acmejack]

7. Hate filled diatribe?

My God man! I am seriously concerned about your mental state, if you took that for a hate filled diatribe! I believe you are the one who looks to insult whenever possible.

[wyldwolf]

9. Hate filled diatribe?

My God man! Where did I say or imply what you wrote was a hate filled diatribe?

So, you see, by reacting that way, then saying I insult whenever possible, you've shown yourself to be reactionary in this instance. I would suggest anyone who feels insulted just alert the mods.

[acmejack]

11. I see how it is.

You edit your response, then make smart assed remarks about "panties in a wad". Then make gratuitous accusations, good for you. Very typical, I should have known better than to attempt to even discuss an issue with you. Later.

[wyldwolf]

12. I'm sorry, are you offended that I edited my post for a mispelling...

10 minutes before you ever responded? What exactly do you think I changed in the post in the 10 minutes it took you to reply? Why do some people slide on their tin foil hats whenever a post is edited?

I should have known better than to attempt to even discuss an issue with you

On the contrary, had you made a serious effort to discuss the issue posted instead of leaping into yet another veiled attack on the DLC, you would have been taken more seriously.

back on ignore with you.

Exactly what Clinton was talking about...

[blm]

4. He went into the 40s after the Rove smear about trashing the WH and

unfortunately left the story out there. Then it stayed low after 9-11 and Rove pushed the blame game and even had polls circulating for months worded to glorify Bush's leadership and tear down Clinton and Gore. Remember the Who do you trust on the terror issue? pollquestions that we were constantly bombarded with for the entire year before the 2002 election?

That whole period was a sickening time with rampant lying against Dems that went uncountered, except by the 10-15% of us who fought it at every turn.

I don't recall Clinton ever going below 40 in ANY poll from that time, and I paid pretty close attention.

[wyldwolf]

5. but his approval ratings were never 39% in Gallup...

...his post presidential job approval rating were never lower than 55%.

[blm]

10. No - that's why Rove went after his personal approval with trashed WH lie.

It was the quickest way to get Clinton's ratings down and Bushboy's up.

[wisteria]

6. Thanks for the explaination. n/t

[BootinUp]

8. It didn't clear up anything though. n/t

[AX10]

13. They are just trying to spin this to make the Repubs look good.