Hillary is leading for two reasons:

[Jackpine Radical]

Name recognition and name association with Bill.

They suspect they want a liberal. And a lot of them believe, on the word of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. that she's "ultra-liberal." How many people do you think can tell the difference between the DNC and the DLC?

Most people other than a few party activists like us have little or no substantive knowledge of the candidates or their positions. If you sit them down & make them listen to actual positions, they tend to favor Kucinich. But nobody is making them sit down & listen. Certainly not the M$M, who are doing their usual content-free horserace coverage, It's all about gaffes, straw polls, haircuts & celeb endorsements.

[emilyg]

1. Good news.

(and Vick found Jesus)

[emilyg]

5. forgot

:sarcasm: for Vick

[havocmom]

2. Yep.

And damn, I have to get off-line here soon. Would really have liked the popcorn concession on this one!

[Selatius]

3. She gets the most media air time of all the Democrats

What came first? The chicken or the egg?

Is she getting the most media air time because of poll reports? Or is poll reports a consequence of the most media air time?

[WI_DEM]

4. and secondly because she has been running a pretty good campaign

I'm not a Clinton supporter but I will give her props for managing a pretty good campaign and doing well in the debates.

[jgraz]

15. Yep, a right-wing pro-war corporatist is a hard sell to Dems

As such, she's not doing a bad job in that area

[truedelphi]

31. Now that the Democratic Leadership is almost

An Xerox copy of Nixon era Repugs.

Okay with the environment - CHECK

Okay with mandated Federal help for children's health - CHECK

Okay with a woman's right to choose - CHECK

Okay with sneaky backroom tactics (Carville to Kerry, and Clinton to "Grandstanding Edwards")
- CHECK

Pro-War (Nixon: Continue with Vietnam; Hill: Continue with Iraq)

The only big difference I see is that Nixon did not have knee jerk responses at all times - he stepped forward as a statesman and made a trip to Red China. If Hill was taking a page from that playbook, she would realize that we no more need to proceed with a war against Iran than we needed to bomb China back to the stone age. China did supply armaments to the No Vietnamesse - just as Iran is doing with Iraq. And under Nixon, China's stock pile of nukes grew - something Hillary is willing to risk all out Thermonuclear war in order to prevent Iran from possessing.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

23. ditto

say what you will, Hillary is a sharp cookie. She wouldn't get this much support if she were anything but. I respect her, but cannot support her.

[jgraz]

6. You forgot corporate $$ and MSM shilling

And, as of late, Rethug reverse-jujistu.

[William769]

7. If the other candidates don't have name recognition by now, they never will. NT

[Az]

8. Marketing 101. Brand name recognition is the most important asset you have

This is true in so many aspects of the business world its ridiculous. Kids armed only with brand name recognition regularly outperform stock market analysts. People are going to vote for whatever they are most comfortable with and recognize the most. The less time they spend delving into the issues on their own the more defined they are by the media and what they see. Thus the race is going to come down to Hilary vs Fred. Because those are the two most recognizable candidates running.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Agreed.

It's certainly not because of her qualities as a candidate.

[Beelzebud]

10. She's in the lead right now because the media gatekeepers want her in the lead.

[JuniperLea]

24. Yep... connect the dots from there.... eom

[MethuenProgressive]

11. Voters like her strength, and they like her politics?

Not everyone is as sexist as you think.

[zbdent]

12. Supporting whichever Dem wins the nod, BUT

name recognition was good enough for Repukes ... I wonder how many of the uninformed thought that they were getting Poppy?

If his name was Irving Roker, would he have even had a chance?

[Wildewolfe]

19. Only to find out they got...

...poopy

[mod mom]

13. It's our job. I spoke w a Dem acquaintance (not active) who asked if I supported Hillary

I told her that Hillary was the ONLY Dem candidate I didn't support. She said "but don't you want a woman president?" Of course I would want a woman president if I supported their stance on the issues was my reply. I went over the issues that mattered to me (Iraq, free trade, election reform, corporatism) and explained why Hillary was not in the country's best interest.) Hillary lost a supporter. She said her husband didn't trust Hillary and supported Gore. I had to agree with her husband's take.


One voter at a time but if we all start informing Dems we can get the job done despite corporate medias annoitment.

[Gelliebeans]

36. Absolutely. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

14. You are a Rove-indoctrinated misogynist....

This is a recording. Beep.

:sarcasm:

Actually, you are pretty spot on. There's a real fear of actually comparing the candidates' stances on the issues. (And a reluctance to mention inconvenient truths such as the fact that most of them support that shameless bit of legislative blackmail known as the Iraqi hydrocarbon law and that for almost all of them the universe in their plan for so-called "universal health care" includes rapacious insurance companies.) To actually weigh the issues requires some research and thinking. Instead, people operate using a bizarre, mind-bogglingly shallow shorthand.

[jgraz]

16. Nice

:thumbsup: :spray:

[antigop]

29. there is absolutely a fear of actually comparing stances on issues n/t

[porphyrian]

17. How short our memories...

Senator Clinton has been framed as our nominee for years now in the media by the mouthpieces of the republicunt party. Whether they've done this because they are convinced they can beat her or because of some deal she's made (she is rather chummy with Rupert Murdoch, apparently), there's no denying our opponents want her to win, and that should make all of us suspicious.

[Squatch]

18. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

You forgot the third reason...she's loaded with money.

[Yupster]

26. Agree Squatch

She won this nomination 2-3 years ago when she was tying up the top moneymen in each state.

[bluestateguy]

20. In 2003-04, Lieberman lived off of name recognition until September/October, 2003

The difference here is that, Hillary is strengthening her position, while Lieberman slowly weakened away into single digit insignificance.

[YOY]

21. Three reasons: Media coverage

Nary a peep about Edwards down the chain to Dodd.

That'll happen when Murdoch is your friend.

[ananda]

22. The press have annointed Hillary Cllinton as the one.

That's so clear.

Look at the way Chris Matthew's treated Clinton
as opposed to, say, Edwards. It was disgusting.

Sue

[Enrique]

25. name recognition

I'm sure a solid majority of people could only recognize Clinton and Obama by their pictures, among all the candidates. A good number of people might remember seeing Edwards somewhere before. Biden? forget about it. The rest? Are you kidding?

[bigtree]

27. they also think she can win

but, I don't expect her critics to admit that any more than critics of John Kerry's primary successes did.

[antigop]

28. Why did a guy named Gene Kelly get so many votes in Texas?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/10/18119/6580

>>
Gene Kelly is an 80-year-old retired military lawyer from Universal City who managed to win the 2000 Democratic primary by virtue of his movie star name. Kelly isn't campaigning. He won't accept campaign donations. He shuns invitations to appear at candidate forums, and to date, has presented no policies or ideas to substantiate his candidacy.
>>

[antigop]

30. Want to have fun? Ask if Hillary supporters know that she doesn't have a specific health plan yet?

Heaven forbid that you should actually ask about issues....

[creeksneakers2]

43. Hillary is coming out with one next month

Not that I think that's a good idea. Its a mistake to have a detailed plan this early. The GOP will twist the details into something scary sounding. It would be smarter to sell the goals, then summaries of the plan.

[antigop]

45. Oh, you're so funny. n/t

[antigop]

47. You were joking, right? If she had a good plan, she should easily be able to defend it.

But, alas, she has no detailed plan.

[mwb970]

32. On TV today, Hillary reminded me a bit of Eleanor Roosevelt.

Funny I never thought of that connection. Anyone else notice?

[jgraz]

33. I've heard they're both female and they think it's 1936

Other than that, no, not much of a connection.

[wren-wren]

34. Hillary is leading

puu..lease,all of the polls are compromised....and have been
for along time .So...you must ask why.Why is Hillary being
promoted as the must win candidate.(or Obama as a backup)These
are the candidates that are assumed to be beatable after the
nominations.I'm sure there is sufficient secret ammo against
each that is being withheld til later.Most people here think
the media is being influenced, but when they hear what they
like ,judgment is suspended.Look a few steps ahead.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. I just talked to someone today (the first Hillary supporter I've actually met)

Her motivation is FEAR, fear that only Hillary is "electable."

Her positions are actually closer to those of Kucinich.

Go figure.

[GreenTea]

37. Right- 1) Republicans want to run against her. 2) The media is pushing her

night & day, owned by the republicans the corporate media also feels, a woman running makes for better news stories, especially one with all the news worthy baggage Hillary has and is why she receives so many republican donations.

The republicans certainly don't want John Edwards.

[wren-wren]

38. hill etc

yeright,I have problems myslf with edwards ,but he's real squeaky clean none the less so must be squelched.Major ,Major problem is media.It controls all so people please be wary of all info coming from that source

[Clark2008]

46. Trust me, the Republicans are not scared of John Edwards...

or HRC or Obama for that matter.

I live in a red/purple state. The people they fear aren't even running.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

39. Because Al Gore Is Not Running

That's why she is so far in the lead.

[rateyes]

40. I pray every night (and if there is a God this will happen)

that Al Gore gets into the race. I'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee...but, God, I hope she's not the nominee...hard to take even a former Goldwater Girl. (Of course, even Goldwater is to the left of the current bunch of idiots in the Republican party.)

[Orsino]

41. And she's not a liberal.

She just happens to be to the left of all the GOP candidates. Washington is profoundly conservative, and Democrat is not the opposite of Republican.

[Odin2005]

42. My mom is perfect proof of your second point.

The only reason she supports Hillary is because she wants Bill back in the White House.

[RestoreGore]

44. "It's all about gaffes, straw polls, haircuts & celeb endorsements'.

Exactly. Which is why certain people are too good for it.