"THE HILLARY DILEMMA" - Larry Sabato

[snowbear]

This is pretty interesting --
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

THE HILLARY DILEMMA
What Should Democrats--and the Country--Do?

Larry J. Sabato
Director, U.Va. Center for Politics


Despite the breathless media reports about every jot and tittle of the Democratic contest for President, not all that much has changed in the last year. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has consistently been the frontrunner in national surveys, sometimes by narrow spreads and frequently by sizeable margins. So far she has weathered the entry of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), a far more charismatic and exciting candidate, and she has held off any sizeable gains by the other two major contenders, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (D-NM).


The main stumbling block for Clinton has been Iowa, where she continues to trail in the trial heats for the first caucus. But no one else is so well positioned to survive an initial defeat. Arguably, her strongest potential opponents, moderates Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) and former Governor Mark Warner (D-VA), decided against running, and the other formidable possible candidate, former Vice President Al Gore, is almost certainly not going to run. The other announced Democratic candidates show little sign of breaking out of the pack.

So it's smooth sailing for Hillary, right? No one questions her intelligence, abilities, policy aptitude, and experience (hey, this would be her third term!) And thanks to the deep unpopularity of President

Read on -- http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2007062101 (And make sure you check the charts!!)

---------------------
Larry Sabata's Bio: http://www.answers.com/topic/larry-sabato

[MilesColtrane]

1. He's getting worked up over nothing.

Hillary will not be the nominee.

[snowbear]

2. Reading some of his charts --- I don't wants her to win either --

Seems it would be a mistake-

[OHdem10]

17. We have a bad habit here at DU-I include myself--of

discouting something because of its writer and just attacking
the writer.

Much of this article is true and should be considered seriously
even if Sabato wrote it.

Killing the messenger is not always the answer.

Take into account that in the past Sabatoe appeared to lean
Bush and Republicans----he can still be truthful in this piece.

[wyldwolf]

18. "Much of this article is true" like what?

[w4rma]

3. Hillary must be stopped. She's the Republican dream candidate.

"The final several percent of swing voters needed to get Hillary Clinton over the top in the general election will vote for her only with the greatest reluctance, more as a way to stop a Republican than as an endorsement of her. That is a shaky way to start a Presidency."

"There is simply no question that Senator Clinton would be the third deeply polarizing President in a row"

"At a time when the nation could use a unifier and a healer--to the extent that any President can perform those roles--partisan warfare would be at fever pitch from Day One."

"Republicans hope that Mrs. Clinton is the nominee because they believe she may be the easiest to beat. Circumstances may prove them right or wrong, but there is another reason why they should root for her. The inevitable controversies of the Presidency would erode her shaky support among swing voters faster than is usually the case."

"Democrats would probably pay a sizeable price throughout the 2010s for a Clinton victory in 2008."

[Clark2008]

15. Edwards must be stopped as well.

Anyone who tries to wipe out his entire Senate voting record with an "Ooops, I'm sorry" excuse does not have the judgment and decision-making skills to be president.

I'd hold my nose and vote for Hillary. Not so with Edwards - he changes his mind every time a new poll comes out. Not that either one of them have a chance in hell to win, nationally.

[1932]

48. His Senate record:

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES to Increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business. (Mar 2004)
Rated 15% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Rated B- by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Rated 83% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record.
Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on expanding fee trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002) THIS WAS LOWEST CATO RATING FOR ANYONE RUNNING IN '04
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES to require health insurance for every child. (Aug 2003)
Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES to let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations. (May 2003)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES to end government propaganda on Medicare bill. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
Voted YES to federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES to hiding sources made post-9-11 analysis impossible. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES to CIA depends too heavily on defectors & not enough on HUMINT. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES to administration did not pressure CIA on WMD conclusions. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on More tax cuts and tax credits for 98% of Americans. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted NO on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Rated 22% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

[Alamom]

4. When all else fails,

use the "Dynasty Diarrhea" Card.

Dynasty - a line of hereditary rulers.

(The Oxford American College Dictionary)


HRC is not related by blood to anyone who has served as pres., VP, etc.but everyone, including Mr. Sabato, knows that.

[opihimoimoi]

5. Should Hillary get the Nom Nod...them Pubs gonna shit in their collective pants

The Newsweek Poll is an indication

[papau]

13. True - but Sabato is a GOP shill - truth is not important - posted on DU as what the other side is

thinking, no doubt.

[onenote]

52. you have anything to back up the claim that sabato is a gop shill?

Or do you just toss that at anyone with whom you disagree?

[snowbear]

61. Yeah, I'm waiting for papau to come back with their explanation on that one too !!!

Should be interesting to hear where they drug up that one.

[The Magistrate]

62. Quite True, Mr. Papau

An ardent supporter of the Republicans' atempted coup by impeachment against President Clinton, routinely trotted out then and since to deliver Republican talking points under a flimsy gossamer of academic credential.

[IdaBriggs]

14. Blood is not necessary for dynastic sucession. She was/is the WIFE

of a LIVING PRESIDENT. Her access (and participation) as a PARTNER to the PRESIDENT disqualifies her in my eyes. That isn't to say that she isn't competent, etc. However, I believe in a "one president per family within living/current generations" and as THE WIFE she qualifies as IMMEDIATE FAMILY to former President William Jefferson Clinton.

And, as an FYI, I personally consider HIM to be the greatest living President of our time, not even second to President James Carter (who is also totally amazing, thank you very much).

:)

[dsc]

16. So you wouldn't have voted for FDR

or Robert Kennedy? FDR was cousin to Teddy.

[IdaBriggs]

38. Robert Kennedy = No (based on IMMEDIATE FAMILY).

FDR is a probably, because there was a nice period of time in between, and the two men weren't "immediate" family/peers. I believe that "immediate" family is too much power concentrated in a small circle of power with disasterous potential consequences, as witnessed by the current ad-mess-tration.

:shrug:

[rinsd]

57. I think it should be case by case vs a hard rule.

[Strawman]

20. I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly

If the Republicans are smart they will play that card all day long against Hillary, and it might let them effectively tie Hillary Clinton to the status quo that voters will be eager to change in 2008. Voters are not generally informed on candidates' positions on the issues (for a number of reasons). I think our biggest assets are going to be the general feeling of Bush fatigue, the sense that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and the desire to give someone different a try.

The Republicans literally have nothing else to run on. Having a simple message like "We've had enough of Bushes and Clintons, let's give this other guy a chance" is about the best message the Republicans can hope for. That's the kind of political conversation I can imagine overhearing at a diner. A smart Republican candidate will "slip" and say something to that effect in public. Or have their spouse say it. They can use it to (try to) distance themselves from Bush and poisition themselves as a change candidate.

Given her high negatives and the settled nature of voters' impressions of her, the "dynasty diarrhea card" absolutely has to be a concern. I hope she is ready to counter that message with something better than "she's not a blood relative" because you can bet they're going to push poll the shit out of it if she's the nominee. Electing* the son of a president had a novelty to it since it hadn't happened since 1824* (that gets an asterisk too), but the idea of 28 years of rotating power between two families is going to seem not right at face value to the republican sensibilities of many Americans. Party loyalty will certainly trump that among Democrats, but among independents who aren't too informed, it could be a big deal and could make them uncomfortable with voting for Hillary Clinton.

I think the counterargument is basically: "The country was in good shape under Bill Clinton, Dumbya really fucked it up." But the tie to Bill Clinton is a double-edged sword. I don't underestimate the potential appeal of that anti-dynastic argument. It comes down to whether or not the voters desire to return to the "golden days" of Clinton trumps their discomfort with 28 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

[wyldwolf]

6. Just so you know, the chart uses a two month old poll. What has changed since then?

Obama's negatives have gone up

The Latest Rasmussen:


"Clinton's numbers have changed little over the past month. In fact, attitudes toward her remain very steady... This month, just 28% are that committed to Obama. Also, the number who would definitely vote against the man from Illinois inched up to 40% this month."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_has_highest_level_of_base_support_but_46_would_never_vote_for_her

Like I keep saying, the more people get to know Obama, the higher his negative numbers will go.

Sabato, like every other rightwing (and leftwing) Hillary detractor, is using recycled talking points selective polling to make his point.

For example, he says:

There is something about Hillary--the person, not the politician--that upsets and repels tens of millions of Americans. Fairly or not, she is seen as cold, calculating, and ruthless, an off-putting combination of characteristics.

There is something about DEMOCRATS that upsets and repels tens of millions of Americans and every candidate who get more well known will have a rise in their negative numbers.

The lastest Rasmussen has Obama at 40% among those who would NEVER vote for him. That is up 4%!

I haven't seen a poll that shows her "cold, calculating, and ruthless" numbers, but I have seen them that show "strength and leadership abilities."

The result of the voters' harsh personal evaluation of Mrs. Clinton is obvious. In many surveys, Clinton runs 3-5 percentage points worse than the other widely known Democratic candidates, Obama and Gore, when matched up against the best-known Republican presidential candidates for November 2008.

And in many surveys she doesn't. As a matter of fact, some survey show her Dem rivals in the same light. Selective poll quoting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/

[GeorgeGist]

7. No one questions her ...

please spare me this bullshit.

[BlueManDude]

8. Sabato thought Bayh was her most formidable opponent - that's all you need to know about Sabato.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. Poster Everybody, What do you mean by no one questions her.

Are you discussing the fact that the msm is letting her skate free without having to answer the tough questions or what?

[DFW]

10. This guy is a political scientist?

He just repeats all the standard stuff that has been repeated before.

The "Dynasty" thing only works if you swallow that Bush won in 2000 and 2004,
which I do not. Bill Clinton won his elections the old-fashioned way, without
Daddy's help, the Republican Dirty Tricks Team, a brother as governor of a
major state, or having his campaign chairmen being the ones who certified
the votes in their states. Whoever the Democratic nominee is in 2008 will
have to win the same way, even Hillary. The Dynasty argument is BS.

There is something that repels millions of Americans? Maybe, but even as a
non-Hillary supporter, I think this is mostly a media creation. Granted, if
you haven't met her personally, you don't have a lot else to go on, but the
media can always make someone--anyone--look good or bad if they make a concerted
effort, and Fox isn't the only one out there with an "agenda," as Fox chairman
Roger Ailes put it (at least he was up front about it). I've met her a couple
of times, and I've met Obama, too. I didn't find either one of them in the least
"repelling."

"partisan warfare would be at fever pitch from Day One."
Crap. That's a dangerous prediction about a Senator who is most known for working
with the Republicans very well, and whose positions are closer to the center-right
than those of any other Democratic candidate except maybe Joe Biden. There would
have to be a lot of Congress taking their marching orders from National Hate Radio
for that to happen.

And if Sabato thinks a close vote would be a shaky way to start a presidency,
what does he think about the 2000 election? For that matter, of the 1968 election?
Both presidents still charged in as if they had won 65-35. Tell me a presidency that
did NOT get off to a shaky start, for that matter.

All the new president has to do, whoever he (or she, if that ends up being the case) is,
is work with Congress instead of seeing them as their adversary, or irrelevant, and they
won't have to worry about a shaky start. Ignoring the people who got them elected would
get them off to a shaky start, too, and if you're a Democratic president, then the party
that elected you is already fragmented into twenty different directions. So big deal about
having difficulty pleasing your constituency. You won't. You can't. You're a Democrat, you
don't have one. Take your job seriously, and you're halfway home already, as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry, but if this guy was intending to give some fresh insight from a political scientist,
I would rather sit down with Norm Ornstein and Howard Dean for 45 minutes. I'd learn ten
times as much, get ten times as many fresh insights, and be in the presence of twenty times
this guy's candlepower.

I could have written that article myself as a freshman in college from an assignment like:
"It has been said that Hillary has a lot of baggage. Use what you have read and heard, but
include nothing new. Take the premise as a given, discuss and post on the web."

There is not ONE candidate out there that is so perfect and inspiring (to me, anyway) that
I am sold on their being "THE one." Luckily, I think I still have 6 months or more to ponder
the situation, and I will not be swayed by negative articles about ANY one candidate if all they
have to offer is stuff that has already been served as leftovers from last week's potluck dinner.

[Tellurian]

12. Larry Loves "Larry"...

He travels the road most traveled homogenizing media spin to the point, he'll be recognized as a preferred source for political entertainment from talking heads, like Chris Matthews. Sabato delights in his celebrity status more as a credential for drawing students, then imbuing the rewards of his Oxford education into thought provoking discussions teaching his students how to think for themselves. Larry's earns a "F" for teaching ability but an A+ for marketing skills as a political entertainer.

[DURHAM D]

11. Larry Sabato - such a tool.

He was on the tv every night during the Clinton presidency. Always pushing, pushing, pushing, for impeachment. Clinton is disrespecting the office, etc. Moral crisis in leadership, etc. Not fit to govern.

An ass then, and ass now.

[OHdem10]

19. Resposne to: "What part is true?

In the article starting with the BOLD Print--"Hilary has her
own set of difficulties" Much is true and to ignore it is
unwise.

My point Here is. No party is going to have a perfect
candidate. I'll swear if we put up Jesus Christ--someone
would find something wrong.

Accept the fact that No Candidate in either party is perfect.
Accept the fact that millions will be spent trying to tear
them down.

However, check out the accusations. Some may not be worth mentioning.
Some are point we must recognize as problems to be dealt with.

Right now Hilary's main problem is her negatives. In the polls
her unfavorable rating is very high for a person to be leading.

Unfavorables are used as a measure to determine electablity.

For example, Unity 08 and Bloomberg will watch her unfavorables.
If her unfavorables or negativws stay high and likewise the GOP
Candidate has some weaknesses---many believe this opens the gate
for a Bloomberg or other third pary candidate to run down the
middle and win the election.

Sabato is simply spelling out Hilary's problems. He also pointed
out the fact that she has a solid lead and has been able to
maintain it--This is no small feat.

[wyldwolf]

21. give some specifics. Don't parrot Sabato's talking points.

[OHdem10]

22. We are discussing Sabato's article are we not????

One is free to accept or reject his artcle. He is saying what
has been discussed ad nauseam on all important talk shows.

Either you accept the fact that Hilary is a polarizing figure
and therefore her negatives are high.

People either love Hilary or hate her. Very few people
are indifferent to her. Can take her or leave her so to speak.

In a nutshell, Hilary has to do something to bring down her
negatives. The campaign admits to this and is working on it.

[wyldwolf]

23. yes, where he puts forth factually inaccurate statements and you accept them as fact... because...

...it's what you want to hear.

[Nedsdag]

24. He's making points.

Not everyone is blindly supporting her like you are wyldwolf. We have to look at the plusses and minuses for ALL of the candidates. Just because Sabato wrote things against your beloved Hillary doesn't mean he should stand in the corner and be quiet.

I don't think the statements are inaccurate; however, he's not writing for the Hillary fan club. He's looking at her flaws to see if she can win in 2008. Just because polls in JUNE are stating she's ahead and everyone else should go home doesn't mean things will stay the same. Ask Howard Dean.

[wyldwolf]

25. then show me the points that are actually true and not his opinion

Most people know the difference.

Here's an example of an inaccurate statement from him:

The main stumbling block for Clinton has been Iowa, where she continues to trail in the trial heats for the first caucus.

A Mason-Dixon poll from June 19 shows Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all in a dead heat in Iowa. In the poll -- which was taken of 400 likely Democratic caucus-goers from June 13-16, and which has a margin of error of +/- 5% -- Clinton is at 22%, Edwards is at 21%, and Obama is at 18%.

Mr. Sabato - that ain't "trailing."

[Nedsdag]

27. So, in other words, wyldwolf, anyone who has questions

about Hillary, should shut up and vote for her without questioning?

Whether the information Sabato has written is true or not, he shouldn't say anything, right?

He should say, "Hillary is the greatest thing since sliced bread" or maybe "Hillary is the Joan of Arc of American politics."

[wyldwolf]

28. no, in other words, Nedsdag, if you're going to write a hit piece, get your facts straight.

your entire reply is nothing more than political forum sour grapes.

Sabato wrote a hit piece. He puts forth his opinion as though they are facts. "Progressives" like yourself believe them because he saying what you want to hear.

Then, you get pissed when someone says, "wait a minute, there are numerous lies in the piece." And then you go off on some silly rant about Hillary supporters believing Sabato shouldn't be allowed to speak at all.

Weak. Desperate.

Sabato is either a charlatan or people like you are so desperate to see Clinton lose that you'll disregard reality.

[Nedsdag]

30. Sour grapes?

So in other words, you CANNOT question anything about Hillary?

We must be lemmings or like cranky little children and shut up!

It's not a "hit piece." It's an objective piece on why voters should think twice about voting for her.

The only person disregarding reality is you. Your head is so buried in the sand, I'm surprised that you can both see and hear due the sand clogging your ears and blinding your eyes.

[wyldwolf]

31. yes, sour grapes

So in other words, you CANNOT question anything about Hillary?

No, in other words, someone who puts forth their opinion as fact even when the facts dispute it should be questioned and debunked.

We must be lemmings or like cranky little children and shut up!

No, you should act like adults and not consider every little factually challenged hit piece as candy just because you're desperate for bad news on Clinton.

It's not a "hit piece." It's an objective piece on why voters should think twice about voting for her.

It contains numerous inaccuracies. Some very recent. Either Sabato is a hack or he intentionally omitted the information.

The only person disregarding reality is you. Your head is so buried in the sand, I'm surprised that you can both see and hear due the sand clogging your ears and blinding your eyes.

You sound like Larry Sabato. You can make the claim, but you haven't a stat in site to back it up.

[Nedsdag]

32. I never said what Sabato wrote was gospel.

He wrote an objective piece. Apparently his facts didn't jibe with your facts.

Besides the "old polls" is his piece, what else was wrong with what he wrote?

[wyldwolf]

33. no, his facts don't jibe with established facts.

He wrote an objective piece.

How are these points objective?

--- "There is something about Hillary--the person, not the politician--that upsets and repels tens of millions of Americans. Fairly or not, she is seen as cold, calculating, and ruthless, an off-putting combination of characteristics."---

How does Sabato know this? There has been no study done or any polls indicating this. It's merely a parrot of rightwing talking points.

--- "The result of the voters' harsh personal evaluation of Mrs. Clinton is obvious. In many surveys, Clinton runs 3-5 percentage points worse than the other widely known Democratic candidates, Obama and Gore, when matched up against the best-known Republican presidential candidates for November 2008."---

But in many surveys, the opposite is true. Does that mean the voters have a harsh personal evaluation of Obama and Gore? Why, yes it does.

--- "Incredibly, close to half of adult Americans already say they have an "unfavorable" opinion of her, and 43-46 percent of Americans say that they would not even consider voting for her." ---

In the most recent Newsweek poll, Obama's number in this respect breaks 40% - an increase of 4%. Hillary's remains flat. This is almost a statistal tie when the MOE is factored in.

--- "Independents, moderates and swing voters are concentrated in this anti-Clinton group, not just Republicans."---

Last week's Gallup found Clinton leading among independents who lean Democrat. :shrug:

---"There is simply no question that Senator Clinton would be the third deeply polarizing President in a row, following her husband's divisive and partially wasted tenure..." ---

Bill Clinton had a 73% approval rating the day after impeachment and and a 68% approval rating the day he left office. The only people divided over his presidency are hate radio listeners and the rest of the country.

Really, there's just too much in this piece to cover.

[Nedsdag]

34. So how would you feel if Sabato wrote a piece

saying Hillary is the "greatest presidential candidate ever" without bringing up pitfalls that may come during the general election? If I were a Hillary supporter, I would feel cheated.

Yes, Obama's number are rising but will they stay that way? The same with Hillary's stagnant "unfavorable" numbers. I don't see them decreasing despite all of her efforts.

So you actually believe that Hillary isn't polarizing? She's that perfect?

All candidates have flaws but for you not to admit she doesn't makes it worse than anything Sabato has written and I'm not a fan of his at all.

[wyldwolf]

36. Irrelevant. Sabato put forth inaccuracies and the anti-Clinton folks lapped it up

[Nedsdag]

40. The anti-Clinton folks would've lapped it up

regardless of who wrote the piece.

They already have a set dislike of her and will not change.

As for being "irrelevant," you're talking about many members of DU who don't support your candidate. I certainly don't think they feel that they are irrelevant.

[wyldwolf]

47. of course, the author was never the issue. The content was.

As for being "irrelevant," you're talking about many members of DU who don't support your candidate. I certainly don't think they feel that they are irrelevant.

No, pay attention. You tried to enter a hypothetical situation into the conversation in post 34:

o how would you feel if Sabato wrote a piece saying Hillary is the "greatest presidential candidate ever" without bringing up pitfalls that may come during the general election? If I were a Hillary supporter, I would feel cheated.

See? Irrelevant. Sabato DID NOT do this.

Yes, Obama's number are rising but will they stay that way? The same with Hillary's stagnant "unfavorable" numbers. I don't see them decreasing despite all of her efforts.

Actually, Hillary's negatives and approval ratings have hovered in the same place for weeks. Obama's negatives, however, have risen and he is now at a 40% negative.

So you actually believe that Hillary isn't polarizing? She's that perfect?

Again, irrelevant. No one has said or implied that. The complaint is Sabato, or anyone using, using false claims to try to prove it.

[Nedsdag]

51. In other words, Sabato = bad; Hillary = good.

Again, I'm not a fan of his at all; but even if his claims are "false" as you say, apparently he didn't see the recent polling you love to quote.

That being said, I have yet to hear any major pundits quoting this great tome by Sabato that you take sooooooo seriously. He's entitled to his own opinion whether you agree with him or not. Most political pundits like to throw in things that don't jibe with conventional thinking. But to take it as a personal insult shows how thin skinned you and other Hillarybots are. I don't agree with him 95% of the time but he's not going sit in a corner and keep quiet.

Like your buddy Tellurian, it makes it hard for me to support your candidate thanks to your zombie-like quest to like everything that she does and to not question her on anything. In the end, I have no choice but to vote for her but it'll be like taking a bitter tasting medicine.

C'est la vie!

[wyldwolf]

53. No, false claims=bad. When you know they're false=worse.. and...

...when you defend the false claims (like you're doing) because you want them to be true=worst.

[Nedsdag]

54. There you go, putting words in my mouth.

I'm not defending false claims. I'm defending Sabato's right to write whatever the heck he wants, whether you believe they are true or not.

Are you denying that there are some who are uncomfortable with the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton political monopoly? That's not a "false claim."

I for one am uncomfortable; however, there's nothing I can do about it. The polls which you love to quote say the American people like two families (yes, families) running the country for 28 years.

[wyldwolf]

55. All through this thread, you've refused to aknowledge they're false.

You've rationalized, you spun, you've tried to change the direction. Just like this...

I'm not defending false claims. I'm defending Sabato's right to write whatever the heck he wants, whether you believe they are true or not.

No one has said or implied Sabato has no right to write "whatever the heck he wants." People, including me, have just called him on his inaccuracies. You seem to have a problem with that.

Are you denying that there are some who are uncomfortable with the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton political monopoly? That's not a "false claim."

I didn't say EVERYTHING he said was wasn't true. But the things he said that were false or dubious were easily verified and/or are obviously exaggerations.

[ludwigb]

26. Outstanding Analysis

The Professor clearly and concisely lays out the pitfalls of a HRC nomination.

We have to choose a candidate on the basis of reason, not emotions. Democrats, please stop beign manipulated by the MSM machine's preference for Hilllary!

[OHdem10]

29. The Fourth Estate(Washington Media) have a basic fear.

Rationally or Irrationally they have this wild eyed dream that
there can be a President who overall has enough national
appeal that the "people" will pretty much accept what he/she
says as gospel. Therefore the Senate and House wil "play well
together" and there will be peace in the land. They do not
like the fights in the Senate and House. "it is unseemly".

Bush has been one unapologetic Polarizing Figure. He played
to Right with abandon. This brought out the absolute worse
side of us Democrats. Constant fighting.

The Media ( I think unfairly) see Hilary as the next great
polarizing figure, The left will end up loving her and the
Right will dig in its heals hating her. Thus another
4-8 years of fighting.

IM0, We may appear to be the Suni's and Shia -- I say we
are in a struggle to determine the character of our country.
What kind of America do we want??? This is big. This is important.
These issues are not going to be settled without some fights.
As long as we do not kill each other, let us struggle.

When the Media refer to repeating Bush and Clinton Administrations
just realize they are sitting in DC having pipe dreams about
a country in which everyone bows conforms and does not question.
They dread polarizing figures.

[avrdream]

35. How far are we going to get if we have a president who says yes to both sides?

Give me a candidate who will FIGHT for the things that I believe in......when all is said and done, that's how we all decide.

Polarizing, schmolarizing - I'm worn out with that phrase.

[enough already]

37. Nothing here we don't already know

Nominating her would be a general election nightmare.

[TheFarseer]

39. Hillary is a repubs wet dream

First of all, it's the best chance they have to win. Second of all, if she does pull off a general election win, she furthers their cause of sending all the jobs overseas and bringing in the illegal immigrant workers. She will keep the war going. She will pander to RWers on issues such as flag burning and violent video games. All the while they can throw rocks at her and say what a bad president she is!

[Tellurian]

41. No you are..pontificating RW talking points, as if you know what you're talking about..

#26, #29, #35 #37, #39... all of you promoting lies and piling on with more lies.

You've all been debunked singularly and collectively by Wyldwolf..I don't know what planet you all are living on, but it's not where the Democrats reside..Take your trash talk and plant it at FR where you will be welcome with open arms.

When Hillary is the nominee, if your posts even come close to what you've written this day, they will be deleted as the propagating of vitriolic lies aimed at sabotaging the democratic nominee. So, have at it...your days are numbered, when we'll have to put up with your vicious, destructive, memes. It will be worth the wait, just being here to support Hillary, while watching your heads explode.

[Nedsdag]

42. Tellurian, that was uncalled for.

Your "Borg Queen" act ("resistance is futile") is wearing thin.

If Hillary becomes the nominee, it's a sad reflection on her campaign to have supporters such as yourself using propaganda that Pravda would be jealous of.

It's because of people such as yourself that make me think twice about supporting someone like Hillary. That's too bad.

I'm not a fan of hers and most likely will be wearing a clothes pin in the voting booth to hold my nose and vote for her. However, snarky responses such as the one you just posted makes it even difficult for me to watch the convention or the debates. I'll vote against someone instead of for someone.

Again, thank you Tellurian.

[Bucky]

45. Good heavens, that's a scary post.

It's the same tone I'd expect someone to say "Come the Revolution, you'll be the first ones up against the wall." Or, more charitably, the first you ship off to the re-education camps. Listen to your shit:

"they will be deleted as the propagating of vitriolic lies"

"So, have at it...your days are numbered"

"...watching your heads explode"

You may not know what planet Clinton's critics are living on, but I sure got a weird sense about which planet you're coming from...

Protect Planet Ekos! Eliminate all Zeon scum!

(on edit)

There's another point where you're factually wrong. When someone says Clinton will be a "Republican lite" or serve the same corporate masters Bushco serves, they're saying anything but "right wing talking points." It's wrong, of course, but it's anything but the sort of thing Fox Newsies say about Clinton. Think about the logic of that before you next start smearing someone for parroting the wingers.

[TheFarseer]

59. sorry, I didn't know you were the expert

I can't see how a real democrat supports this woman. What kind of right wing talking point includes "she'll pander to us on social issues like flag burning"? She sat on the board of Walmart. I don't think this is a huge stretch to say she supports the exporting of America. And what has she said about alternative energy? Some of our candidates are real leaders on this issue, but HRC can only bring herself to say the very vanilla things that even the republicans are saying. Of course if she is the nominee, I will refrain from trashing her, but I think I'll be sticking to Senate/House discussions. After all, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

[PBass]

43. Wise up! Every Democratic candidate is going to be framed as "divisive"...

If you don't think right wing operatives like Sabato are going to call Barack Obama a polarizing candidate, you are crazy.

Hillary's just getting the treatment because she's the front runner. If Hillary were to drop out of the race, the pack of wolves would descend on the next Democratic candidate to take the lead.

Ya know, just because it's a right wing talking point that "Hillary is divisive" doesn't mean that DU'rs have to repeat it.

You guys think they'll be nicer to Obama?

Gore?
Clark?
Kucinich?
Edwards?

Whoever is leading the Democratic polls is going to get raked over the coals. How do I know that? It only happens EVERY DAMN TIME.

[Bucky]

44. It's not "sleeping" to recognize that Mrs Clinton is divisive even on DU

Sabato mouths a lot of conventional wisdom, but he is hardly a "right wing operative." I will offer the friendly advice to you that paranoid delusions do not build up your credibility with open minded participants in this discussion board.

I will also point out that, far from "getting the treatment because she's the front runner," what bothers me about her candidacy is the eiry silence about her from the usual right wing loudmouths. Oh, I'm sure they're insulting her when they can, but none of it is making the news. Every mistake Edwards makes is getting amplified, smears against him pop up every couple of weeks. Fox has tried to dig up, and then make up, all sorts of crap about Obama. When was the last really big smear against Clinton from the right?

Neighbor, that's been too long. I suspect that they're holding their fire until they can see the whites of her eyes. I don't think she's not getting smeared because she's got an agreement with them, but rather because she's the candidate with the highest negatives that they can capitalize on. Tactically it makes sense for them not to unpack their anti-Clinton weapons until after she's over the delegate-count hurdle. In fact, it's curious to me how much Fox News really kept the Gerth and Van Natta smear book at a distance. It's not because Fox isn't in the mood of smearing Clinton, it's that Gerth and Van NAtta were getting ahead of the script.

Certainly the broadcast wingnuts will go whole hog against any candidate we nominate. The problem with Clinton is that she's a much softer target. Her negatives are particularly high among swing voters, which is odd since around here it's usually the Democratic base that worries more about the senator, not moderates. They can afford to wait another year before revving up the smear machine with her. Her negs are already established.

And it's disingenuous, unfair, and a bit of a cheap shot to dismiss criticism of Clinton as Democrats "repeating right wing talking points." If a Democrat makes this complaint, it is not a right wing talking point, but a Democratic talking point. By definition, it is what Democrats believe. You can dispute it and as Clinton supporter you should. But you can't say it's not coming from legitimately Democratic sources. Well, technically you CAN say that, but you'd be lying when you do.

If people are turned off by her, if real established Democrats on this board really say they won't vote for her if she's nominated, you simply can't factually say she's not divisive. She's already dividing us. In the long run, I don't think very many Democrats will snub her in November. Moderates and people who might lean Democrat might, but the rank and file will probably mostly do their duty. Still, the fact that some are saying they won't now is a real problem among the base your candidate will need to address.

[PBass]

46. Fair points. I'll concede that she's divisive, if you'll conced that she has

a ton of popular support among Democratic voters. That's why she's the frontrunner, not because somebody said there was "Clinton Inevitablilty". Do you think those Democratic Clinton supporters are dupes, morons, or 'playing into the hands of the Right"? I certainly hope not.

Certainly the broadcast wingnuts will go whole hog against any candidate we nominate. The problem with Clinton is that she's a much softer target.

I couldn't disagree more. First, I think Hillary will push back harder and/or with more skill than the other Democratic candidates. Hillary is the best politician in contention for the Democratic primary. Second, because i don't buy into the criticism of her (from the Right) I don't think their criticism will have traction. Fair enough, if you believe it will.

I don't buy into the whole "inevitability" thing and complaining about it indicates that some of you do. It's still anybody's race to win or lose. Hillary Clinton is the most-attacked politician in history. Any traction she has with voters, she earned it the hard way. If Barack Obama wants the nomination, he's going to have to earn it. Frankly I haven't seen the other candidates saying and doing the things that it takes to win... Have you???

I didn't see the last primary debate but I saw that Obama got more minutes of air time than any other candidate... so how did he do? Did he capitilize on that incredible opportunity? Did he put in a primary-winning performance??? I understand that he did not. I was hoping to see Edwards do well but he doesn't seem to have the political chops. I love his platform about the two Americas but I don't think that is a winning message with many voters, I think it is actually divisive in itself. We can spend all day talking about how nice it would be, for somebody else besides Hillary to win, but if those candidates can't perform when the chips are down, it's all just talk. Its still early though, and I do believe anyboy can win. There's a saying in boxing, 'to beat the champ, you have to knock him out". I haven't seen Hillary making any big mistakes, and I haven't seen anybody upstaging her... so far. I think Hillarys leading not because James Carville is behind her, but because she's been performing the best with her campaign, and has the best name recognition and a ton of leftover good will with the voters, from the Bill Clinton years.

[ludwigb]

56. I don't see a lot of insane irrational hatred of Obama out there

The hate I see coming from right-wingers re. Obama is mostly pure racism. People who object to Obama because of race aren't going to vote Dem anyway.

So far, it doesn't look like the MMM has anything on Obama. If they bring up his drug use history, then that will just reflect back on Bush.

[rinsd]

58. I like Obama but the insane hatred is still to come.

"The hate I see coming from right-wingers re. Obama is mostly pure racism. People who object to Obama because of race aren't going to vote Dem anyway."

Working class whites which are a key demographic for the Democrats are not the most enlightened group.

"So far, it doesn't look like the MMM has anything on Obama. If they bring up his drug use history, then that will just reflect back on Bush."

They bring up his middle name for crissakes. Obama will get it with both barrels.

What is comforting is that Obama has hit back and hit back hard when he has been attacked.

So while I think Obama can handle it, I would not feel safe from attack.

[Mass]

49. Question: what are Sabato's motives?

I do not like Hillary and I may agree with some of his points, but I have learned to despise Sabato for a lot of his past analysis. He has been attacking basically any Democrats that has a progressive fiber as too divisive, so nothing new that he would see the leading candidates in the polls as too divisive. It is how he gains his reputation, by showing Democrats to the left of Ben Nelson as divisive.

Sometimes, I wished people remember that the ennemies of our ennemies are not necessarily our allies (See Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul).

[Tellurian]

50. Surprised at why this thread exists? Never was anything but flamebait..

Generally, the OP usually screams bloody murder...SHUT IT DOWN!! FLAMEBAIT!!

when something negative (the Truth in facts) is posted by investigative journalists regarding her candidate, Obama!

[snowbear]

60. Another day....

...another DISS from TellU.

The only time DU'ers call a thread "Flamebait" are when personal comments start to get out of control and cross the line. For example, the other night when a supporter of a particular candidate made some crude, disgusting remarks that the moderators found to be obscene.

This is a posted article by a well known political professor and contributor to Media Matters.

--------SO WHAT?-------


And BTW -- I haven't selected or donated to any of the candidates thus far and there is no "her candidate" yet. You certainly ASSume a lot.

[Tellurian]

63. I specified what this egotistical faux Democrat ..

is all about-

You've got your nerve..When we post the status concerning a current investigation pointing to Obama's personal affiliations with an indicted criminal...you whine and cry foul. The articles I've posted are recent UNBIASED news regarding Obama's not so honest political affiliations. The key word here is UNBIASED!