ben smith's blog - politico.com

ben smith's blog - politico.com   january 2007 february 2007 march 2007 april 2007 may 2007 june 2007 july 2007 al gore al sharpton barack obama bill clinton bill richardson blogs campaign finance chris dodd congress consultants debates dennis kucinich environment fox news channel gay politics healthcare hillary clinton howard dean immigration internet iowa iraq joe biden john edwards john kerry john mccain labor magazines mike bloomberg mike gravel money new hampshire new york newspapers polls republicans rudy giuliani senate south carolina tech notes tom vilsack tv wes clark white house subject committee insider series question who do you agree with regarding the house select committee on energy independence and global warming? answers sensenbrenner: just a publicity stunt. markey: an opportunity for change. reference link july 09, 2007 read more: hillary clinton hillary the inevitable obama strategist david plouffe released a memo last week arguing that hillary clinton's advantages were essentially those of incumbency, that her support was thin, and that obama should actually be considered the front-runner. mark penn, clinton's chief strategist, responded today with a memo that seemed designed to bludgeon all opposition into senselessness through the sheer power of numbers (links to 40 polls showing hillary in the lead!) penn strongly implies another i-word is the best description of hillary -- not incumbent, but inevitable. in recent election cycles, any time a candidate has had as much as 35 or 40 percent of the vote consistently across polls in a multi-candidate field, that candidate has gone on to win the nomination. in the last race, joseph lieberman was in the teens at this point while walter mondale’s numbers in the 1984 democratic primary were comparable to hillary’s now. i'm not entirely sure of the wisdom of this line of argument. does he want hillary backers to think of her as the mondale of 2008? sure, mondale got the nomination but....  full memo after the jump. update: "inevitable" is my word, not mark penn's, which is why i wrote he had "strongly implied" inevitability. i've taken the quote marks off the words incumbent and inevitable above to make that clearer. to:      interested parties from:  mark penn, chief strategist   date:   july 9, 2007   re:      after 6 months     with two quarters of 2007 behind us and just 6 months to go until the iowa caucuses it is a good time to see where hillary stands and why.   the bottom line?  hillary’s electoral strength has grown in the last quarter and she is better positioned today than ever before to become the next president of the united sates.  recent polls have her at or near 40% with leads of 15-20 points over her nearest competitors. voters yearn for change and they say that hillary has the strength and experience to actually bring about that change. hillary’s message: that her strength and experience will bring real change that america needs, is resonating strongly with voters.   despite unprecedented early publicity for all the candidates, hillary’s support in the last few months has strengthened nationally, in key states and in the general election. this improvement has occurred as voters have learned more about all of the candidates.  in other words, as all the candidates’ name id’s have increased, so has hillary’s lead.  so far the debates have been the key moments where the voters get to see all the candidates side by side and they have shown just how ready hillary is to be president and how she has the strength and experience to make change happen. she won the debates overwhelmingly and they are a key indicator of how this race will play out in the next 6 months and in the general election.  there will be another debate every month from now until the end of the year, and each debate provides hillary with another opportunity to demonstrate her experience, talk about her record on the issues, and show voters why she is the person best qualified to be president.   in the latest newsweek poll, which fielded after the 2nd quarter fundraising numbers were released, hillary's lead in the democratic primary nearly doubled from 12 points in may to 23 points now.  hillary's favorability has risen to 57% among all americans, and they say overwhelmingly she has the experience to be a good president (70%).  nearly two-thirds say there is a good chance or some chance they will vote for her (62%).  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19623564/site/newsweek/   in the general election, hillary leads top republican rudy giuliani by seven points (51 percent to 44 percent) in the last newsweek poll, up from just three points a month ago.  the next closest democrat leads giuliani by only five points (49 percent to 44 percent), down from seven points in may. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/   in fact, hillary leads giuliani in all the latest national polls – cnn, fox, gallup, newsweek, nbc/wall street journal, quinnipiac and cook/rt strategies.  and hillary is tied or ahead of giuliani in key battleground states which democrats lost in both 2000 and 2004, including florida, ohio http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/sw/sw06272007.doc and west virginia. http://www.wvmetronews.com/index_forsub.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=19789   democratic primary as observers like charlie cook have pointed out, hillary has the coalition of support (women, strong democrats, lower, middle-income and working families, hispanics and african-americans) that has traditionally won democratic primaries. http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0707/070307op.htm  the profile of voters supporting other contenders, according to cook, resembles the "support profiles of gary hart in 1984, paul tsongas in 1992 and bill bradley in 2000.  the numbers are splashy and significant but not sufficiently broad-based to capture a nomination."   hillary's support is highest among key voter groups who make up the core of the democratic coalition: women, hispanics, african-americans, strong democrats and lower, middle-income and working families.  her lead in the democratic primary widens to 29 points among non-whites.  the latest gallup http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28000 and cbs polls http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/062907_campaign.pdf confirm the extraordinary enthusiasm for hillary among women http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27676&pg=1 , hispanics http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-27-hispanics-dems-cover_n.htm and african-americans http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28006 .  and according to another recent gallup poll, hillary has a 22 point lead over her closest competitor among those who earn less than 50 thousand dollars per year.   every major poll shows hillary’s lead increasing in the democratic primary.  in the real clear politics average of recent polls, hillary has a 14.3 percentage point lead, a widening of 5.5 percentage points in the last 3 weeks. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/charts/?poll_id=191 in recent election cycles, any time a candidate has had as much as 35 or 40 percent of the vote consistently across polls in a multi-candidate field, that candidate has gone on to win the nomination. in the last race, joseph lieberman was in the teens at this point while walter mondale’s numbers in the 1984 democratic primary were comparable to hillary’s now. recent national polls show just how strong hillary has become with voters nationally. (top 3 candidates only shown below) cbs news june 26-28: hrc 48 / obama 24 / edwards 11 may 18-23: hrc 46 / obama 24 / edwards 14 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/29/opinion/polls/main2999400.shtml cook/rt strategies june 21-23: hrc 35 / obama 24 / edwards 15 june 15-17: hrc 32 / obama 22 / edwards 16 http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2007%20poll_tpline_june25.pdf cnn june 22-24: hrc 43 / obama 25 / edwards 17 may 4-6: hrc 41 / obama 27 / edwards 14 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/25/poll-bloomberg-could-have-perot-like-effect/ fox june 26-27: hrc 47 / obama 21 / edwards 13 june 5-6: hrc 41/ obama 26 / edwards 15 http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/062807_release_web.pdf gallup june 4-24: hrc 41 / obama 24 / edwards 14 june 1-3: hrc hrc 37 / obama 35 / edwards 13 http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28024 nbc/wsj june 8-11: hrc 39 / obama 25 / edwards 15 april 20-23: hrc 36 / obama 31 / edwards 20 http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070613_nbc-wsj_release.pdf newsweek june 20-21: hrc 43 / obama 14 / edwards 14 (no tracking) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/ why has hillary’s lead grown as voters are exposed to all candidates?   debates   each time the voters have had the opportunity to compare the candidates head-to-head in a debate, hillary has come out the overwhelming winner. in the june 28 democratic debate in washington dc, 27 out of 33 participants in a luntz maslansky dial group (81%) said hillary won, compared with just 2 (6%) for her closest competitor. and hillary was also the overwhelming winner in the new hampshire debate. who won the debate? nh d primary voters (franklin pierce june 4) among all d primary voters: hrc 45 / obama 8 / edwards 4 / richardson 3 / biden 3 among d primary voters who watched debate: hrc 47 / obama 11 / edwards 6 / richardson 4 / biden 3 http://www.fpc.edu/pages/institutes/poll/poll_07_0604.pdf   there will be another debate every month from now until the end of the year, and each debate provides hillary with another opportunity to demonstrate her experience, talk about her record on the issues, and show voters why she is the person best qualified to be president.  ready for change the reason for hillary’s growing support is that voters want change, and they know that only hillary has the record of fighting for the kind of change they want, and the experience to execute it. in the june 8-11 nbc/wall street journal poll, 61% of democrats and democratic primary voters said that hillary would bring real change to the direction of the country.  56% of voters say that about her nearest competitor. 62% said hillary has a vision for the country’s future, more than any other candidate.   http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070613_nbc-wsj_release.pdf among those people for whom change is most important – working middle-class and low-income families, seniors, working women, and people without health care – hillary is viewed as the most effective champion.    endorsements   hillary is also a leader with key endorsements that have proven valuable in organizing support in early primary states and across the country - including former iowa governor tom vilsack, former south carolina governor richard riley, former nevada governor bill miller, maryland governor martin o’malley, new jersey senator robert menendez, new york governor eliot spitzer, new york senator chuck schumer, new jersey governor jon corzine, maryland senator barbara mikulski, rhode island senator sheldon whitehouse, former democratic house leader richard gephardt, los angeles mayor antonio villaraigosa, philadelphia mayor john street, boston mayor tom menino, former new york mayor david dinkins, and celebrities steven spielberg and maya angelou.   early primary states in most of the key early primary states where the candidates are spending the most time, where voters have the opportunity to get up close and personal, hillary’s lead is growing while the other leading contenders continue to lose support.  (only leading candidates shown.) new hampshire primary (suffolk university) june 20-24: hrc 37 / obama 19 / edwards 9 / richardson 9 feb 24-28: hrc 28 / obama 26 / edwards 17 / richardson 2 http://www.suffolk.edu/files/suprc/june_24_07editednewhampshiremarginals.pdf   south carolina primary (arg) june 26-30: hrc 37 / edwards 22 / obama 21 may 23-26: hrc 34 / edwards 30 / obama 18 http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/scdem8-705.shtml   nevada caucus (mason dixon) june 20-22: hrc 39 / obama 17 / edwards 12 / richardson 7 april 30-may 1: hrc 37 / edwards 13 / obama 12 / gore 9 / richardson 6 http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2007/jun/24/062410708.html in iowa, hillary is locked in a competitive battle.   iowa caucus (arg) june 26-30: hrc 32 / edwards 29 / obama 13 / richardson 5 april 27-30: hrc 23 / edwards 27 / obama 19 / richardson 5 http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iadem8-707.shtml   strategic vision june 22-24: edwards 26 / obama 21 / hrc 20 / richardson 11 may 18-20: edwards 29 / obama 24 / hrc 16 / richardson 9 http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_062707.htm   mason-dixon june 13-16: hrc 22 / edwards 21 / obama 18 / richardson 6 http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/19/230049.aspx   and in the primary states with the most delegates (florida, new york, california, texas, pennsylvania and ohio), hillary has an overwhelming lead.   florida – quinnipiac june 18-25: hrc 43 / obama 16 / edwards 11 / richardson 2 http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/sw/sw06272007.doc california – ppic june 12-19: hrc 41 / obama 25 / edwards 12 / richardson 3 http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/s_607mbs.pdf new york – siena june 18-21: hrc 43 / gore 19 / obama 11 / edwards 9 / richardson 1 http://www.siena.edu/level2col.aspx?menu_id=562&id=7072 ohio – quinnipiac june 18-25: hrc 40 / edwards 12 / gore 12 / obama 12 http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/sw/sw06272007.doc pennsylvania – quinnipiac june 18-25: hrc 32 / obama 18 / gore 16 / edwards 7 http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/sw/sw06272007.doc texas – texas lyceum april 26-may 7: hrc 33 / obama 21 / gore 10 / edwards 8 / richardson 3 http://www.texaslyceum.org/media/staticcontent/pubcon_journals/texas%20lyceum%20-%20june%2014th%20poll%20press%20release.pdf general election and every major poll now shows hillary leading rudy giuliani.  in the real clear politics average of recent polls, hillary has a 2.4 percentage point lead, an improvement of 7.8 percentage points in the last three weeks. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html#polls cnn june 22-24: hrc 49 / giuliani 48 (no tracking)http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/25/poll-bloomberg-could-have-perot-like-effect/ cook/rt strategies june 21-23: hrc 45 / giuliani 44 june 15-17: hrc 42 / giuliani 42 http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2007%20poll_tpline_june25.pdf fox june 26-27: hrc 39 / giuliani 37 / bloomberg 7 june 5-6: hrc 39 / giuliani 41 / bloomberg 7 http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/062807_release_web.pdf gallup june 4-24: hrc 50 / giuliani 45 june 1-3: hrc 45 / giuliani 50 http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28024 newsweek june 20-21: hrc 51 / giuliani 44 may 2-3: hrc 49 / giuliani 46 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/ nbc/wsj june 8-11: hrc 48 / giuliani 43 march 2-5: hrc 42 / giuliani 47 http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070613_nbc-wsj_release.pdf quinnipiac june 5-11: hrc 45 / giuliani 44 april 25-may 1: hrc 40 / giuliani 49 http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?releaseid=1075         by richard allen greene 02:12 pm | comments (201) | post comment | permalink  digg this      del.icio.us      reddit      yahoo!  facebook      google      technorati please leave your comments below. name: ip address: recorded on submit comments comments remember ned lamont! she still is part of the congress with a popularity rating about half of president bush's. i, for one, advise all americans to reconsider such support of hillary. she is not a flash in the pan for sure --- she is just a cooked burger put back on the grill of our politics. posted by: j. p. hogan | july 09, 2007 at 03:44 pm      report abuse to mark penn: once caveat to your memo. the vast majority of the electorate are not seriously following the campaigns. we have six months to go. release this memo in january '08 when it really counts. posted by: jay | july 09, 2007 at 03:52 pm      report abuse hrc is using polls to prop herself up. it's her entire strategy because she knows that if people actually looked at her "experience and strength" they would see a) that she is not an advocate for change and b) her experience and strength hasn't produced sound judgment on her part. it's an empty slogan. when john kerry used his record in the vietnam war as his platform, the press turned a critical eye towards it, as it should have. will the press finally start to ask whether hrc's experience has brought change in the past like she claims it will in the future? will it ask whether she has shown courage or "strength" on issues? will it ask whether her experience has led to her showing better judgment than her rivals? in fact, carl bernstein answers many of these questions in his book and undermines many of the clinton camps claims. maybe the press should look at his book as a starting point in questioning her platform. personally, i think when you scratch the surface, it becomes clear hrc has little to show for all her "strength and experience". in the end, this election is about change vs. the safe choice. when you vote hillary you know what you're going to get: a advocate for war, failure on health care, and a polarizing national figure. we can do better posted by: dag | july 09, 2007 at 04:00 pm      report abuse hmmm, did penn include how hillary has the highest ranking in percentage of view unfavorable and would not vote for? inevitability is a two part process: if she is inevitable, we may as well cancel the general and give it to the republicans, because if she wins the primary, she will inevitably lose the general election. posted by: dsf | july 09, 2007 at 04:01 pm      report abuse hillary's poll numbers reflect name recognition - period! her support is superficial. if hillary had strong support she would do better in fundraising. why aren't all those people donating to her campaign? they're not donating because it's not real support - it's name recognition. penn was one of those saying hillary would blow obama out of the water on fundraising. well, that hasn't happened yet. it's hard to believe these people are democrats. they know that a hillary nomination will cost the democratic party the white house and they're pushing her anyway. it's amazing! i'm a lifelong democrat and i have never voted for anyone but democrats, but i will not be forced to vote for hillary. if she by chance wins the nomination, i will either vote for a 3rd party candidate or i'll sit this one out. posted by: itstimetoturnthepage | july 09, 2007 at 04:39 pm      report abuse hrc's campaign is entirely anchored by polls and slogans, rather than key issues, her record of accomplishment, or a new vision for the future. posted by: sam | july 09, 2007 at 04:43 pm      report abuse missing the $33million question(s) an impressive if desperate attempt by mr. penn, who is working hard with the hand he's been dealt. unfortunately for him, the biggest liability for the clinton campaign remains the candidate while the biggest asset for the obama camapain remains the candidate. plus it's way early (still) plus no one is paying attention so her "strength" is very soft plus - remember howard dean the "inevitable" frontrunner from about august 2003 through early january 2004. how'd that work out? her campaign is terrified. proof of this was this past week. she's already pulled out the biggest club in her bag - bill - in iowa and it's only july. her internals are telling her the same thing - penn is just quoting a bunch of name-recognition polls. how are those negatives - not to mention d numbers that just won't vote for her under any circumstance? which is why we get desperate memos like this one. posted by: eric the red | july 09, 2007 at 05:03 pm      report abuse i am a traditional african american democract, and i have always voted the democratic ticket, but if clinton wins the primary i will vote republican. polls don't count, votes count. where are these polls getting these numbers. i agree with the previous writer, if she has all those endorsements, where is the money? something is wrong with that picture. and too, i am 'sick and tired' and 'tired of being sick and tired' of the bush-bush and clinton-clinton era. obama is the people choice; therefore he will be the next president of the united states. posted by: coleman | july 09, 2007 at 05:13 pm      report abuse i just threw up in my mouth a little. posted by: orange line | july 09, 2007 at 05:26 pm      report abuse abviously a great salesman, or suffering greatly from self delusion. print this page and read it again in jan of 08. posted by: stephen b | july 09, 2007 at 05:28 pm      report abuse the very idea of hillary becoming potus is laughable. she could not even control her husband, what makes her think that she could run the country? posted by: w. hallett | july 09, 2007 at 05:31 pm      report abuse mrs. clinton is inevitable and that will be a good thing for the country. she will stop this silly "war on terror" and restore economic prosperity and fairness, not to mention prestige, to this country after the republican disaster. she will make sure that wealthy people pay their fair share and she will make sure that we all get the health care we need and deserve. if she had the courage to dump her husband's baggage she could easily win a lot of red states. the only reason that red state voters, who are equally sick of the republicans, do not flock to her in droves is that they cannot stomach four or eight more years of bill catting around the white house. posted by: paul | july 09, 2007 at 05:34 pm      report abuse another blog filled with hateful conservative comments...darn i was hoping for something different. might as well watch fox "news" if i want to hear this kind of garbage. posted by: pam | july 09, 2007 at 05:35 pm      report abuse i agree. hillary is another mondale, and will lose to the republican choice -- likely the tall man from tennessee. posted by: brass | july 09, 2007 at 05:35 pm      report abuse gore jumps in. hillary squeals like a stuck pig. bill snarls, pounds and honks. the media & press pee in their collective pants. the flag is up! and there they go........ wanna make a bet boys and girls? posted by: pbp in colorado | july 09, 2007 at 05:37 pm      report abuse oh please please please let it be hillary v. ron paul. posted by: clc | july 09, 2007 at 05:39 pm      report abuse balderdash!!!!!! posted by: justme | july 09, 2007 at 05:39 pm      report abuse go hillary go....only thing better for the reps in '08 would be if she named howard dean as the vp posted by: rogue | july 09, 2007 at 05:39 pm      report abuse i think hilary is the epitome of the democratic party. bill too for that matter. i would love to see you vote her as the candidate. posted by: bob | july 09, 2007 at 05:42 pm      report abuse no one on the left can win a national election. posted by: john a. | july 09, 2007 at 05:42 pm      report abuse i hope senator clinton wins because i would really like to see a highly qualified woman become president in my lifetime. no matter how much people put her down, i have known, for a long time, that i will be voting for her. i forgive her (and her husband) for past mistakes and errors, and i hope for the best for our future. good luck, senator hillary clinton! a female and independent voter in florida, usa posted by: independent voter in florida | july 09, 2007 at 05:47 pm      report abuse i'm a lifelong conservative democrat. i admit that i made the mistake of voting for w the first time around. but i can't bring myself to hold my nose and vote for hillary. whatever the polls may say, the underground consensus among our crowd is that she is unelectable, and if she gets the nomination, it's another four years with a republican in the white house. posted by: walter | july 09, 2007 at 05:47 pm      report abuse what experience is he writing about? romney and giuliani have much more executive experience than any democratic candidate. when was the last senator elected president? kennedy/johnson and kennedy only by a nose and johnson due to the assassination of kennedy. why can't the democrats find any governors with solid executive experience in the private or public sector to run? posted by: phild | july 09, 2007 at 05:48 pm      report abuse remember, a vote for hill is really a vote for bill ;-)) posted by: favy | july 09, 2007 at 05:49 pm      report abuse i'm very glad to hear this--i agree that hillary is the only one with the experience, mental and political substance, and political savvy to not only win but do good job as president. i like obama--nice voice, dresses well--but still don't know of a single accomplishment he's had in the political arena. on the republican side, we have a mix of nuts and hacks. i still love when giuliani was publically arguing that he should be able to bring his mistress home to gracie mansion while his wife, still reeling from the public announcement that he was seeking a divorce (he didn't tell her first), was living there, taking care of their young children. blech. posted by: rockymountain | july 09, 2007 at 05:49 pm      report abuse it's nice to see that hillary's chief strategist can't even spell "united states". president of the "united sates" is a bit freudian even for her. posted by: rory | july 09, 2007 at 05:49 pm      report abuse hillary smells funny. posted by: steve | july 09, 2007 at 05:51 pm      report abuse t00 early to get giddy .....dems you are not viewed by the american people as a party of change more corruption more taxes more infidelity drug ....... posted by: alan | july 09, 2007 at 05:51 pm      report abuse i fail to see any scenario whereby mrs.clinton wins the presidency. polls suggest anywhere between 35-45% of registered voters would not vote for her under any circumstance. it's hard for me to imagine your typical detroit autoworker, or any red-blooded male in the south actually pull a lever for a woman to be president, let alone hillary clinton. call me crazy, but i still think hillary will end up as the howard dean of 2008- once late november rolls around, the good folks in iowa will ultimately pick someone who has a legitimate shot in the general election. my money is on obama to pull off the upset, with hillary finishing in a howard dean-like 3rd place. no amount of money, or bill clinton on the campaign trail, will change people's minds. wait until the attack ads start- once people know the 'real hillary' , her poll numbers will drop like a stone. posted by: mike m | july 09, 2007 at 05:52 pm      report abuse mrs. bill clinton will take obama as a vp. she needs the black vote, al & jesse plus any single women and soccer moms who'd vote would have voted for a pretty face. the clinton's will stop at nothing and will do anythimg to get their trailer parked back on the lawn at 1600 penn. ave. posted by: larry jones | july 09, 2007 at 05:52 pm      report abuse it is now part of the public record; these polls are hrc's greatest acomplishments. no substance, nothing new. and now to show how fearful she is, she trots out bill to go on the campaign trail. how sad is that? after 8 years, this is her best idea? she is deluded and power hungry. give us new choices!! posted by: jd | july 09, 2007 at 05:53 pm      report abuse i had a mother for 47 years, verious teachers for over 15 years, a wife for 40 years, i don't need another female carping at me from the white house for the next 4/8 years. thank you very much. posted by: seatalker | july 09, 2007 at 05:54 pm      report abuse i look forward to hillary for a number of reasons: 1) better the devil you know, than the one you don't. 2) she could galvanize the conservative base again against her. 3) her unfavorables show she, more than any other, can be beat! posted by: bob | july 09, 2007 at 05:54 pm      report abuse we need to pick someone that will survive closer scrutiny,when it gets down to actual battle with the republicans for the presidency.bill and hillary's record including ark. will destroy her chances. that isn't what we need in the long run. she should be vp first.nuff said. posted by: dpd | july 09, 2007 at 05:56 pm      report abuse she will never be president, period. posted by: mike | july 09, 2007 at 05:57 pm      report abuse to the writer who said hillary will take obama as vice. i disagree. she'll already get 90% of the black vote as the nominee. she'll gain 3-4% at most choosing obama, and would like lose that many who don't like him. my thinking is she'll pick bill richardson so that she can have the first latino vice and possibily pick up more of the latino's who would normally vote against her. posted by: bob | july 09, 2007 at 05:57 pm      report abuse check out http://www.youchoose08.tv for news and videos on the '08 presidential candidates! posted by: youchoose08.tv | july 09, 2007 at 05:58 pm      report abuse there are two inevitabilities in the 2008 campaign: 1. no democrat can beat hillary in the primary. 2. no republican can lose to hillary in the general. get ready for miguel estrada, allison eid, margaret ryan to assume the seats of stevens, ginsburg, and souter on the supreme court. :-) posted by: rainbowrepublican | july 09, 2007 at 05:59 pm      report abuse if hillary is elected, it will be a very dark day for america. posted by: mistrx | july 09, 2007 at 05:59 pm      report abuse there are still a few of us around who remember well september 1948 when, according to the then pundits and their fancy polls, tom dewey had it made, "hands down". apparently, the folks who went to the polls a month and a half later didn't get the word and proceeded to elect the hat salesman from independence missouri. posted by: tph | july 09, 2007 at 06:00 pm      report abuse hahahahahahahahahaha posted by: | july 09, 2007 at 06:02 pm      report abuse i love to read the comments from the whiners on the left. folks, just because people don't see your point of view, it doesn't mean they are "hate filled" ... it just means they have a different opinion. hillary has nothing to offer the usa that it already hasn't tasted (and spit out...) obama has nothing to offer other than his youthful charm and fresh-face on the ballot. argue against that all you want, change the subject, whine about the (r) candidates... it doesn't change the truth. and yes, i agree. blogs, polls and slogans do not a candidate make. posted by: billybob | july 09, 2007 at 06:03 pm      report abuse hillary is banking on being the best of a bad bunch. dodd? biden? dennis the menace? "maybe i get the hispanic vote" richardson? obama is the only one who can come close and maybe he will falter once people see he is, o.k., likeable, but nonetheless, an inexperienced lightweight. hillary is scripted, she mandates the questions she can be asked at gatherings, she hasn't been tested even once on one of those "so what about that cigar in the vagina thing bill had in the oval office?". let's see how the stack blows then. to know this woman, to read more about her every day with the books now out about her nature, her hunger for power, her ruthlessness, is to hate her. she can cart out bill now on the campaign (inexplicably, he retains his star power), but eventually she will be up against a rudy or a fred, or a mitt, and she will pale dramatically by comparison. bloc votes notwithstanding, i have great hopes america will finally elect someone better than hillary clinton. posted by: snidely | july 09, 2007 at 06:05 pm      report abuse actually a ticket with clinton and obama could probably get elected in 08 ... but only if clinton is vp, and we all know her ego won't let that happen. imo the dems have a better chance at the white house with obama or edwards, however they will have another year of the dem controlled congress doing nothing to overcome. not sure if they can do it. i'm like many .. inclined to vote for a democratic candidate after the bush debacle, but i won't vote for her if she's the candidate. posted by: todd | july 09, 2007 at 06:05 pm      report abuse hillary would be the worst thing for our country.she is a lying,backstabbing piece of crap.she still has ex friends sitting in jail over her schemes!!! posted by: jerry | july 09, 2007 at 06:06 pm      report abuse what they fail to report is her match up against fred thompson. not so fast! fred slaughters her, as reagan did dukakis when polled. put down the ashtray mrs. clinton. ;) posted by: mike | july 09, 2007 at 06:06 pm      report abuse oh pam, pam...what is "hateful" about noting that mrs. clinton (nee rodham) has no more real political experience than mr obama and a political tin ear besides? senator obama is raising money hand over fist and appears to be trying to state his case, fully, honestly, and without balderdash, as to why he would make a good president. senator clinton appears to spend most of her time trying to get voters to "move on" from inconvenient facts, from previous positions, and from a history of lying in the pursuit of power. she is also finding it more difficult than she had supposed to raise overpowering funds, notwithstanding whatever benefit the former president has on her campaign. i may be conservative, but i find senator obama's honesty to be laudable. i will vote against him should he gain the nomination, but i also know that, if he were to win, i could line up behind him and support him as my president. i cannot, in good conscience, do the same in the event that senator clinton prevails. so, pam, if that is "hateful" in your opinion, then i accept that. in any event, i am assuming that you intend to close your eyes, drink the kool-aid, and vote for hillary. and if she gets the nomination and collects as many votes as senator kerry managed last election (in losing), i'll come and join you in a glass... posted by: locksley hall | july 09, 2007 at 06:07 pm      report abuse appears to be the strategy of" beat my chest loudly and deflect the truth...like a kid pulling a tantrum to divert attention to themselves. hillery___ no good experience, no honest track record, no name recognition if not married to wee willie, and big numbers that would not vote for her for any reason.. as a long time dem-i will vote 3rd party if she is our candidate. posted by: jet | july 09, 2007 at 06:08 pm      report abuse i am going to vote for obama in the primary, hoping he will beat the tramp, then i believe when most white voters reach for the lever, they will not be able to vote for a black, fearing the most of the staff and advisers in dc would become back. posted by: bill kenyon | july 09, 2007 at 06:09 pm      report abuse you're full of crap. hillary has over 50% of the voting public who will not vote for her under any circumstances. she is an empty suit that is morally bankrupt. she is a megalomaniac that just wants power. what are her real qualifications and what has she really done. zip, zero, nada! posted by: kevin solid | july 09, 2007 at 06:09 pm      report abuse i'm waiting for hrc to prove her "equality for all" by sharing her campaign fortunes with the other candidates. after all, isn't she the biggest advocate for taking from the rich and giving to the poor? isn't she all about the "equalization" of wealth? why doesn't she share her money with the other, more "disadvantaged" candidates? liberal elitism. posted by: concerned | july 09, 2007 at 06:11 pm      report abuse wow, ri's own sheldon whitehouse. a man who promised the voters of rhode island that if elected, he'd have the troops home by christmas, 2006! too dumb to actually realize he wouldn't even be sworn in until after, christmas. wow, former new york mayor david dinkins, the man who brought ny to its knees and was responsible for guiliani?s election! this is her support? bring it on! posted by: aldo | july 09, 2007 at 06:13 pm      report abuse this article points a fatal flaw in hillary's campaign for higher office, that her candidacy can be simply boiled down to "inevitability". the problem is similar to what happens to people who keep smoking cigarettes. while "inevitable" cancer is certainly not something to look forward to. therefore, it may be that a nail in her as begs the question as why bother to vote... posted by: not hillary!!! | july 09, 2007 at 06:14 pm      report abuse she's got that name recognition thing. obama will grow on the american people. i suspect that hillary has peaked too soon. posted by: section9 | july 09, 2007 at 06:15 pm      report abuse it was once reported that 20,000,000 frenchmen couldn't be wrong. guess what? posted by: cato | july 09, 2007 at 06:15 pm      report abuse she is a lying, theiving, pandering pseudo lesbian "snake"...she is an abomination...indubitably like her "a" hole husband is one of "the greatest rectums in all of diarrhea"....'shameful'''tjey had and have no shame".... posted by: oliver | july 09, 2007 at 06:16 pm      report abuse some of the comments are directed towards hillary's sex rather than her politics. i think this belittles her as a candidate to use sex stereotypes. attack how she is approaching issues in her campaign, attack her politics, but by attacking her sex it shows how uneducated you are. posted by: brit | july 09, 2007 at 06:17 pm      report abuse hillary becoming president is about as inevitable as michael moore winning the boston marathon. posted by: jason | july 09, 2007 at 06:24 pm      report abuse mark - go back to running burson-marsteller and spare us this spin. posted by: former bmer | july 09, 2007 at 06:24 pm      report abuse i also remember when my favorite college football team, with two games to go and favored by 32 points over the next weak team and looking ahead to the final game, essentially failed to show up and lost badly to the weak team that they assumed they had it locked up against. i agree strongly that it's hillary's to lose and that she has the overwhelming advantage but a lot can happen between now and nov. 2008. posted by: paul tau | july 09, 2007 at 06:26 pm      report abuse hillary can not campaign for herself, she depends on bill. i guess if she wins, bill will be doing all of the state of the union speeches. she will never become the president. yes, it would be nice to see a woman as president, but not her. she is disliked by so many voters. she is not capable of bringing the country together. posted by: democrat, miami, florida | july 09, 2007 at 06:29 pm      report abuse hey pam, please point out the hateful conservative comments posted here in the comments that you referemced. posted by: kepa poalima | july 09, 2007 at 06:29 pm      report abuse oh puh-leaze. did anyone hear of lying with statistics? she will never have more than a 40% favorability rating nationally because so many people hate her (even many dems like me who will easily vote for bloomberg over hillary). hell, i might even vote for rudy over hillary since both are pro-choice, they pretty much have the same position on iraq, and rudy is a much better leader capable of bringing the country together at a time of need. that all said, what is going to happen is as follows: mark penn, the crooked pollster, and all of the other nasties on the clinton side, are going to try to try to swift boat obama in the fall. these folks have no more shame than the rovians. at that point, it is going to become evident to everyone that the clinton campaign is all spin and totally full of sh-t. she can never win a general election because she is as divisive as bush. once that becomes apparent around september/october, gore will jump in and crush her (as he should). he will them pick obama to join him and america will be saved from another 4 years of clinton drama. it is time for change and hillary isn't the one. posted by: mark dobler | july 09, 2007 at 06:29 pm      report abuse i so hope she gets the nomination. she will be eviscerated for all of her dirty-dealings. posted by: bill wheless | july 09, 2007 at 06:29 pm      report abuse first, why would anyone suggest that hillary is a strong woman? do strong women let their husbands cheat on them repeatedly and repeatedly forgive them? that sounds like someone who is either power hungry or money hungry, not strong. second, why is every election the lesser of two evils? if we are voting for the president, shouldn't we have candidates we are proud to vote for? i should never walk into a polling booth and have to say to my self "who will f### this up the least?" this is why i could not vote in 2004 and why i will probably not vote in 2008. posted by: ty | july 09, 2007 at 06:30 pm      report abuse take a poll of active or inactive marines and see what the score is. posted by: mac marine | july 09, 2007 at 06:31 pm      report abuse netroots democrats are an interesting bunch. you cannot stand hillary, yet it is inevitable that she will be your party's nominee. it must hurt to know you are so out of touch with your own party. where does that leave you in relation to society as a whole? the r race is much more interesting, simply because there is no inevitability. personally, i think big fred will win the nomination, and it will provide an interesting contrast to big hill. can the d's actually lose another presidential election, even with the advantage of w's current problems and a compliant press? yes, yes they can. b ut right now, hill is the odds-on favorite of anybody running to win the whole thing-- she will be the d nominee, and the d nominee should have a significant head start given w's problems. posted by: beerhere | july 09, 2007 at 06:31 pm      report abuse i look forward to america rejecting hillary-nomics, which is another word for communism. posted by: bill wheless | july 09, 2007 at 06:32 pm      report abuse please.... clinton-obama 08'. this would bring in the one world government we need to save our planet from this global warming disaster! did you know our mars rovers have caused the tempature on that planet to go up three degrees? bring our rovers back so we can save mars from global warming there! maybe we need to destroy our sun so we can save all of our planets from global warming! who is with me?..lol posted by: medalman | july 09, 2007 at 06:32 pm      report abuse mr. penn chanting change, change change, hillary is for change. what kind of change? it seems that the voter is left to decide for himself who will provide the "change" better and by the way, what kind of changes? do people really think that hillary and obama are different candidates? more honest, more ethical? give us a break mr. penn, your candidate is seriously ethically challenged. posted by: r. reinbold | july 09, 2007 at 06:32 pm      report abuse hillary r. clinton has no vision to solve the nation's problems. tax and spend is a wrong means. bullying subordinates is not leadership. yes, polls indicate electing hrc would be a change, but the poll aggregated the opinions on whether she would bring a positive or a negative change to america! similarly, when pollsters ask if president bush is doing a good job and the respondent says no, the poll is combining the opinions of people who thing he is weak and not doing what should be done (closing the southern border, winning the war in iraq, chastising the democrats, and cutting domestic spending) with the people who think he is doing the wrong thing. posted by: larry r. holmgren | july 09, 2007 at 06:33 pm      report abuse you read it hear first. hillary clinton will never be elected. america is sick of the melodrama that is her life. again i will bet the farm on it. rush limbaugh only says she is going to be 44 so as to rally the base (the sheep). posted by: kevin coleman | july 09, 2007 at 06:33 pm      report abuse ron paul will make mince-meat out of her. posted by: bill wheless | july 09, 2007 at 06:34 pm      report abuse we have a year and 1/2 of this madness. it is way to early --- too much room for someone to mess up (bill). isn't it too early to try to call the race.... damn posted by: traci | july 09, 2007 at 06:34 pm      report abuse it is all very interesting but there is no way that either hillary or barak will defeat the republican that gets nominated; so i say let then trade notes for the next 8 months. the democrat party has surrendered to the islamist terrorists and the american people will not elect a party whose primary foreign policy is surrender and defeat. it really is that simple and all of this discussion will soon be moot. thank goodness. posted by: rick | july 09, 2007 at 06:34 pm      report abuse say it enough times and it might come true. aaahhhggg! if the media would just quit trying to make the news and report it as it is, then they would be doing their jobs and we would all be better off. this making of the news is nothing short of conspiracy! posted by: awkins | july 09, 2007 at 06:34 pm      report abuse she can't even keep her husband's zipper up, how will she lead the country? she is also a shrill, opportunistic, conniving be-otch. gore, obama, bloomberg, giuliani and hagel would all get my vote ahead of hillary. posted by: barbara tarnoff | july 09, 2007 at 06:34 pm      report abuse silly democrats....the american people will never allow bill clinton back into the oval office again...not a single time...never posted by: kjs | july 09, 2007 at 06:35 pm      report abuse hillary is consistently over 50 percent is unlikability. over 50 percent refuse to vote for her. when all is said and done this is really the only poll that matters. posted by: vwcat | july 09, 2007 at 06:36 pm      report abuse yuck. posted by: srbeckman | july 09, 2007 at 06:39 pm      report abuse if hillary elected, your live will be fine, life doesn't change by a president. unless you're in the army, and liberals aren't in the army trust me. posted by: labeau | july 09, 2007 at 06:39 pm      report abuse i am a lifelong dem. no one i know wants hillary. too much baggage. we want gore, edwards, or obama/ or combination as p and vp. she can't win as her negatives are too high!! posted by: akaye | july 09, 2007 at 06:41 pm      report abuse hillary parallels karl marx in ideology. terrorists don't hold a candle to the damage that can be done to a free nation by a person like hillary. perhaps...rather than blow up all their brothers...the terrorists should invest in her campaign? hillary is way more effective at accomplishing mutual goals. in the end....hillary is not the problem....but the voters who will sell this country down the road. posted by: navigator7 | july 09, 2007 at 06:42 pm      report abuse let's remember that the "smartest woman in the world" couldn't find her law firm files for months that mysteriously ended up on her desk. she also "didn't know" that bill was doing what bill had continued to do for years. if she doesn't know some very simple and obvious things, why should we trust her to run the country? this isn't a hate hillary party, it's just time for some honest analysis of her "accomplishments". lights on, nobody home. posted by: jd | july 09, 2007 at 06:43 pm      report abuse do you think that any woman would be elected president for 2008? i think that is something that you do not hear much discussion about. posted by: cjm | july 09, 2007 at 06:47 pm      report abuse more than half of the u.s. electorate will not vote for senator clinton for president under any circumstance. that will be difficult to overcome, and certainly makes the descriptor "inevitable" seem ridiculous. posted by: iam4uk | july 09, 2007 at 06:48 pm      report abuse never in my life have i ever considered suicide until now. posted by: gunny5 | july 09, 2007 at 06:50 pm      report abuse if my pollster came back with anything other than glowing numbers given my position as #1 or 2 in the race with obama, they'd be out of a job. get real! posted by: dave | july 09, 2007 at 06:51 pm      report abuse it is imperitive that "we the people" defeat the criminal class in washington before they destroy the country. they, as any twit realises, are the demicraps and the repulsives. it is now or never. posted by: thenewyorktimesisacomicbook@yahoo.com | july 09, 2007 at 06:52 pm      report abuse i believe hillary to be in the lead. regardless, i would like to see all the candidates address the united states? commitment to the united nation?s millennium development goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. indeed, it is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. in a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach and it is my hope that whoever becomes president in 2008 addresses this pressing issue. posted by: jessica | july 09, 2007 at 06:52 pm      report abuse dear mr. penn: please keep drinking the kool-aid. i love it when you sychophants keep trumpeting the wretched clintons. posted by: ron bellus | july 09, 2007 at 06:53 pm      report abuse she has no chance. she is unelectable. now, she might still win the nomination. that would guarantee a red victory. think, people! posted by: aua | july 09, 2007 at 06:55 pm      report abuse is this a joke? posted by: taylor | july 09, 2007 at 06:55 pm      report abuse she is in to win and she will be the next leader of the free world. get use to madam president clinton hillarystheman.com posted by: bob | july 09, 2007 at 06:57 pm      report abuse hillary is a soc**l*st. the missing letters are i,a,i . this site will not let you use that word. but if i wanted to call a republican a nazi thats ok. this site is a joke. posted by: ken | july 09, 2007 at 06:58 pm      report abuse i like the way hill has bill's balls in a lock box. wow, she finally got him to trundle around behind her like a good boy. is it safe to say that anyone that bill campaigns for looses? it is also true that americans love youth and beauty in their women and she is not great to look at and she is shrill and naggy just like the rest of the libs. the dems have played their hand and we see them for what they are: blame the other guy never take responsibility for your actions and when caught say it never happened. all this talk about draining the swamp in 100 hours left william jefferson, democrat la, still in the house. i agree, no dem can win a national election. posted by: wetcloud | july 09, 2007 at 06:59 pm      report abuse it makes no differece noone is going to vote for a woman or a muslim in the south during a general election period. i would be more scared of john edwards if he wasn't such a moron. posted by: florida dan | july 09, 2007 at 07:00 pm      report abuse the democrats and the republicans are not capable opf running the country. they are completely corrupt and morally diseased. they are a huge tumor in our office in washington and it needs radical surgery to remove it. it needs to be done on this watch or it will be too late. mark my words. we are at the tipping point of no return or back from the abyss of economic and political collapse. please help save america and don't vote for either party of the criminal class. posted by: thenewyorktimesisacomicbook@yahoo.com | july 09, 2007 at 07:04 pm      report abuse hillary and obama are the left's best picks??? conservatives or republicans can win this easily. there is no reason that either of these socialasts should come close to winning anything. these two's downfallks will be their own words, records and actions, as well as inactions. piece of cake for the right, just dont blow it guys. posted by: last exit | july 09, 2007 at 07:07 pm      report abuse articles like this really get my emotions running. i really really dislike this woman. i can't take listening to her rediculous arguements anymore. posted by: bobby j | july 09, 2007 at 07:08 pm      report abuse how can anyone say that mrs. clinton is "unelectable?" in this closely divided country all she has to do is to keep the blue states -- which are unlikely ever to vote republican -- and pick off a single red state like ohio that is sick of republicans. while it is true that 50% of respondents say they would never vote for her, bill never had 50% of the vote and he won two elections quite handily. i can easily envision a scenario where she gets smashed in the popular vote but narrowly holds the blue states, picks up ohio, and is sworn in as president in january 2008. and what republican candidate can stop clinton, inc.? romney can't. the tall guy from the south can't. rudy might, but by the time her team is through with him his own mother will not know him (not to mention his ex-wives.) so i do agree that she is inevitable. there is no doubt about it. posted by: paul | july 09, 2007 at 07:10 pm      report abuse another i word- "it-doesn't make-any-difference" who we elect. all of them plan on selling us out. posted by: l | july 09, 2007 at 07:15 pm      report abuse mark penn, "billary's" karl rove, represents the continuation of the slash-and-burn, win at any cost, power-but-no-governance, style of bush-clinton politics. it's the politics of division and we need to end it. the impressive list of polls falls to note hillary's skyhigh negative ratings: more than half the nation will never accept her leadership. if her election is "inevitable," so is four more years of partisan warfare and gridlock. i believe that if democrats nominate her, the nation will elect either a republican or an third-party candidate. posted by: party-of-one | july 09, 2007 at 07:16 pm      report abuse hillary will win if america is ready to convert to a soviet style state without individual property rights, or the right to control your own capital, or the right to raise and educate your children in the manner you see fit, or the right of free assembly and political dissent...come to think of it - maybe she's won already! posted by: maddog | july 09, 2007 at 07:16 pm      report abuse for those of you that think hillary's unelectable, please take a look at the best argument against maintaining the disastrous status quo: iraq. the stench will tarnish the gop for decades--- especially once the facts behind pre-9/11 cheney's 2001 energy task force become known. posted by: jack backstreet | july 09, 2007 at 07:18 pm      report abuse inevitable is an awfully strong word, especially in politics... especially when we are about to fight a fight about presidential pardons and commutations... especially when ms. clinton's husband granted 140 in the last 24 hours of his office (456 during his presidency). i will grant the word "likely," but only if she divorces bill. posted by: darren | july 09, 2007 at 07:20 pm      report abuse as a guiliani supporter, i only hope hillary is the democratic nominee. she is a lying, shrill with an overblown resume and is married to a scumbag. it was good seeing the two of them together in iowa, because it reminded me and many other americans, i'm sure, just how much contempt a large percentage of us have towards the two. posted by: david | july 09, 2007 at 07:23 pm      report abuse you youngsters won't recoginise the name. he was a big game hunter many years past. he had black guides when he was in africa,hunting for big game. one of the most dangerous was the water buffalo, while stalked, no one knew which way it would turn before it charged. running for president in '08, there's the equivalent, the hildabeast. . . posted by: frank buck | july 09, 2007 at 07:27 pm      report abuse is it really true that you can't use the word "social__t" on this forum as ken stated? it appears so. that seems rather silly on a political website to exclude commonly used terms like that. it also seems odd that 'democrat' is the default choice for 'party affiliation' in the user profile. surely it would more reasonable to set that on 'independent', don't you think admins? posted by: aanders | july 09, 2007 at 07:28 pm      report abuse hillary will not win the primary or the general election. her negitives with women and men is so large and her looming scandals and her negative rating in iowa yesterday they said enough there is voter burnout already on hillary the congentital liar and billy bob the rapist and un husband, they will never fly in middle america! convincing america that they are a couple is a joke no one believes her even if she poses with billy bob! i think bloomberg as an independent will garner more votes than hillary! her past will come out in huge scandals including rose law firm the oldest most respected law firm in arkansas says no to hillary, they lost 70% of their clients since the corrupt billy bob clinton shoved hillary down their throats! she is nothing but a third rate ambulance chaser without billy bob and his gang of criminals! she is a frumpy zero who never shaved her under arms til 1986 when billy bob was back as governor! the gop is loaded for bear in 08 and the constant negitive ugly crap that comes out of hellerys screaching mouth will hurt her this is july 07 and no poll will stand up util next summer! voter burnout now just wait till news medias hillary 24/7, number one she can't convince a soul that she even believes in any god, phony as a 3 dollar bill! billy bob things rolls off him including scandals hillary is like a fly it sticks to to her like s--t. oposistion research on her is going to be so big that by jan 08 no one will talk to her, she is so corrupt! bimbo police are out already, no one wants even 4 years of an ugly fat assed 60 year old marxist witch with a screaaaaching voice that irritates all men and women who don't believe in liberalism! ask yourself what has she ever acomplised that was not a direct result of billy bob and his cronies? nothing. has she ever taken the lead in the senate? no has she written any legislation that was voted on and aproved? no, she is no commander and chief, she loaths the military just ask the marines who protected her in ther clinton whore house for 8 years! she would not even acknowledge that they where there, she is a god awfull liberal feminists ugly fat butted asexual women! yikes! just say no to hillary! i make her the nag of the entire year!!!!!!!ask yourself is she leader of the world? abosolutely not she is not as bright as the media thinks. she would be a worse than a plague on this earth!! posted by: james | july 09, 2007 at 07:30 pm      report abuse on iraq, just remember that mrs. clinton voted for it before she voted against it...no...wait, that was tried before by that tall senator from new england. look, none of the facts or issues really matter in this election. clinton inc. does not know how to lose, they are very smart, they are very savvy, and they are utterly ruthless. in 2008 the democrats have only to pick up one red state in a year where republicans are at an all-time low. all she has to do is to show up. the new york times, the washington post, the la times, and cnn will do the rest for her. hers is going to be a transformational presidency because she will have solid majorities in the house and the senate. the united states in 2011 will look very different than it does today. take it to the bank. get used to it. inevitable. posted by: paul | july 09, 2007 at 07:30 pm      report abuse i believe it. the sheep follow. posted by: jeff | july 09, 2007 at 07:32 pm      report abuse yawn... posted by: erik | july 09, 2007 at 07:33 pm      report abuse al gore is tall and from tennessee...is that what you mean?.....fred thompson is bald.....and time magazine once said we'll never elect a bald president....unless we repeal women's suffrage...then we may actually get a leader in the white house.....the female vote has absolutely ruined politics in this country..from prohibition to fdr 's nanny state..to the clintons...a set of balls bigger than hillary's is what's needed to win a war against islam...terror is a tactic ..islam is the enemy.."beware the false prophet"...you were warned.....wake up america and stop throwing "pearls before swine".....too bad "w." cain't read his own bahble...if he even has one posted by: redneck jesus | july 09, 2007 at 07:34 pm      report abuse hecate - i mean 'hillarsaurus' is reportedly the only babe in her talie class who cponsumated her wedding night with a cuban cigar. she'[ll become president when muhammud amadinejad is installed as the archbishop of canterbury. posted by: steve | july 09, 2007 at 07:34 pm      report abuse look, i served in the us navy when bill clinton was president. i suffered through 4 years of him and hillary shouting "we abhore the military!" here is a woman who claims to support our troops when she screamed at us, while i was on active duty, that she absolutely hates us? yeah, she thinks we are so stupid that we forget this type of stuff? hillary is a bigger liar than bill. everything she says is a lie. i am glad to see democrats wake up and realize this woman is nothing more than an evil, scheming, demon possed person with her only goal to destroy america. not gonna happen on my watch! posted by: andy panda | july 09, 2007 at 07:34 pm      report abuse except for us political junkie's not many voters are paying too much attention yet to the 2008 presidential race....though they will. some candidates are seemingly very well known and others hardly have any name recognition. but there will be much new info that will shine some new light on all the candidates. some facts that will come to light will be old news with a new twist. as an example is the potentially incriminating tape of hillary clinton speaking with peter paul, stan lee and director aaron tonkin in the summer of 2000 about clinton's forthcoming fundraiser when the then-first lady was seeking her first term as a u.s. senator from new york. the star-studded 2000 event was later deemed to be a violation of federal campaign finance laws: the clinton campaign had to pay a $35,000 fine to the federal elections committee. clinton's campaign finance director david rosen was accused of lying to the fec. hillary and her staff have always maintained she played no role in planning the fundraiser. after almost seven years of the senator's denial of receiving, and failing to report $2 million in campaign contributions, a "smoking gun" tape that has been recently released reveals that senator clinton not only had direct knowledge of paul's planning and funding of the event, she and her white house staff liaison with her senate campaign acted as co-producers and talent coordinators of the event, the largest fundraiser of her campaign. what with perjury being a hot topic in today's political area, we will most likely hear a lot more about this. have you a recollection that in the civil war, the union had an ironclad ship called the "monitor?" it was sheathed in iron plating, with a rotating turret atop a nearly submerged hull, and the confederates just kept firing every cannon they could at it, but the balls just bounced off harmlessly. it was deemed by both sides to be "unsinkable". hillary reminds me of the "monitor." caught in a storm off cape hatteras, the monitor foundered on december 31, 1862 and the storm that just came along sent the monitor to the bottom of the sea. hillary's storm will come. posted by: | july 09, 2007 at 07:35 pm      report abuse hillary is the best weapon the gop has. the her past is getting a free pass from the press. the powder will be dry all the way up to sept 08. posted by: i'd buy that for a dollar | july 09, 2007 at 07:36 pm      report abuse one more thought: i'd imagine that the same people who are so passionately against mrs. clinton and her policies are the same people who could not believe that her husband was elected not once but twice, and that al gore was elected (and then un-elected.) get it into your heads; reaganism is d-e-a-d. the majority of people understand that our saber-rattling, strong-armed foreign policy has been a disaster. they understand that the federal government has walked away from its obligations to the middle class and the poor and the elderly by giving billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest members of society, and they understand that our health care system is dysfunctional. we need to bring our troops home, make the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes, and help those who cannot helop themselves. that's what mrs. clinton is allo about and, as i said in a previous post, she will make the america of 2011 a very different place than it is now. there is nothing wrong with going back to the 1990's (or as rudy says "pre 9/11) because it was a time of peace and prosperity. together as an american village we can do much better and she will make that happen. posted by: paul | july 09, 2007 at 07:40 pm      report abuse hey andy panda...i knew a marine who listened in on all incoming and outgoing calls at the white house....."pizza" was code for hookers(s)....the helo pilot was ordered to take off and land all day long to practice not spilling a drop of white wine filled to the brim.....when hillbilly exited the chopper, marines who would normally follow the potus with their gaze as a guardian eye would look straight ahead as a silent/secret form of disgust......true story brother posted by: redneck jesus | july 09, 2007 at 07:42 pm      report abuse high ranking people on obama's campaign are already talking to me about barrack being the vp nominee with hillary. if anyone doesnt see that hill has the nomination in the bag doesnt know what they are talking about. ive worked on every presidential (but one)since 1980, experienced people understand whats happening here... posted by: dem dem | july 09, 2007 at 07:43 pm      report abuse inevitable? snow them with rhetoric so they are not only blind but senseless? hillary inevitable? no. notta. not in this lifetime. it would be putting "king" bill in the white house again. remember, they are the same pair that did the incredible abuse of power so eloquently outlined by barbara olson in her book: "the final days-the last desperate abuses of power by the clinton white house", and a must read for anyone forgetting who hillary really is: "hell to pay-the unfolding story of hillary rodham clinton", also by the late and wonderful barbara olsen. (mrs. olson died when one of the 9/11 high-jacked planes was flown into the pentagon). posted by: d. stelzried | july 09, 2007 at 07:48 pm      report abuse from florida independent voter: "i hope senator clinton wins because i would really like to see a highly qualified woman become president in my lifetime. no matter how much people put her down, i have known, for a long time, that i will be voting for her. i forgive her (and her husband) for past mistakes and errors, and i hope for the best for our future. good luck, senator hillary clinton! a female and independent voter in florida, usa". and women have the (fill in the blank) to talk about where men's brains are - this "woman" is the poster child for reconsidering woman's suffarage. what an airhead! posted by: | july 09, 2007 at 07:49 pm      report abuse idiots with one opinion venomously attacking idiots with another opinion and vice versa. conservatives are a uniform block of regimented unthinking automatons who follow their ideology like lemmings off a cliff over a lake of fire, or like a mindless sea of zombies following rush's every word. liberals are such clown-shoes wussies with no courage whatsoever that leadership qualities are like kryptonite to them. all liberals flip-flop on all issues because they care so much about the opinion of everyone around them that they fail determine their own opinion. you are all a bunch of worthless rabble. grow a backbone and start thinking for yourselves. i'll back up my protests with specific examples. liberals - you pansies are reeling because we lost 3600 soldiers in a 4 year conflict?? we lost that many soldiers on one morning on d-day. iraq's average dead over the duration of the conflict is less than practically every conflict we've become a part of....including desert storm where the conflict was over in 4 days. conservatives - you fight and fight and fight and fight to reverse the abortion ruling - year after year, decade after decade. strategically, it is always easier to maintain momentum for a movement if you're in the minority fighting to change the status quo than to be in the majority defending it. passions subside over time for the majority whereas the minority's passions are constantly reinvigorated. nobody wants to give money to stop change, everyone wants to give money to create change - it's just fact. what you fail to comprehend is that if the rvw ruling is ever reversed, the backlash this country will face will rival the greatest of all american social upheavals. america doesn't want rvw overturned. ever. if you engineer it to be overturned, your ideology will be brutalized by the backlash - fair warning. posted by: aaron | july 09, 2007 at 07:51 pm      report abuse pam slobbered: another blog filled with hateful conservative comments...darn i was hoping for something different. might as well watch fox "news" if i want to hear this kind of garbage". whatsa matter, pam? can't handle it? bashing fox news tells me you're a cnn/msnbc/cbs/nbc airhead - if you can't read the bull that bouncing around in your skull, you cry. posted by: | july 09, 2007 at 07:51 pm      report abuse to those on this post who would like to see hrc elected...what exactly are her qualifications to run a country? sure, she was in the white house for 8 years....so were her servants. does that mean they are qualified to be president? also, ask yourself who best knows how to spend the money you earn at your job. is it you, or is it the government? hillary would outright tell you that you can't possibly know how to spend it better than she can. she really should drop the "rodham" and replace it with "marx". we could write volumes on her lack of qualifications and her blatant marxism. posted by: right is right | july 09, 2007 at 07:54 pm      report abuse maybe the reason more concervatives post here than dems is b/c concervatives tend to follow the news more....ron paul 08!!!! posted by: chuck | july 09, 2007 at 07:56 pm      report abuse jack backstreet slobbered: "for those of you that think hillary's unelectable, please take a look at the best argument against maintaining the disastrous status quo: iraq. the stench will tarnish the gop for decades--- especially once the facts behind pre-9/11 cheney's 2001 energy task force become known". leave it to a whining, lying liberal to hang on to a "scandal" (lie) where none every existed. the only stench we smell is you communist chunks of human waste and your incessant lies. that is the only thing you know how to do. c'mon, jericho! posted by: jes2 | july 09, 2007 at 07:56 pm      report abuse wishful thinking. only politicos, hacks and wannabes are watching this bloated election cycle. talk to me in 6 months. posted by: b. smith | july 09, 2007 at 07:57 pm      report abuse hillary will win, i think she will. this site has alot of negative comments, seeing as conservatives mostly read it but i think she has a good chance. hillary has alot of support in the party and as far as general election goes, bush won in 2004 and his negatives were just as high posted by: rigso | july 09, 2007 at 07:58 pm      report abuse al gore, please enter the race, and stop all of this madness. posted by: oh, god! please help us! | july 09, 2007 at 07:58 pm      report abuse no doubt the fix for hillary has been a done deal for years. she will be the dem's nominee. the smart party leader's know they are in deep trouble because of it. she will not carry as many states as gore in 2000. she can not carry the south, southwest or texas...can't win without em. posted by: shirlee | july 09, 2007 at 07:58 pm      report abuse hillary is a puppet of her new york and hollywood media mogul monster puppeteers. they are new-age goebellian nazis and will use their mastery of the tv and print to elect their stupid air-head bimbo. grits posted by: grits | july 09, 2007 at 07:59 pm      report abuse anyone who has ever spent any time around a middle aged woman would never elect a middle aged woman to a position of any importance whatsoever.....even if the hotflashes have passed posted by: redneck jesus | july 09, 2007 at 08:06 pm      report abuse hillary who? posted by: k | july 09, 2007 at 08:16 pm      report abuse i love all the bush bashing. i guess i am still delusional to think that 13,600 on the stock market, 4.6% ue rate, saddam dead, iraq/afgan free, europe cowering, no terror hits to mainland in 7 years is a good thing. oh yeah, lettin in 12mm mexicans might not be a good idea. get over your negative bush. good man, mostly good policies, not messin with every skirt while terrorists plot posted by: billinnewyork | july 09, 2007 at 08:20 pm      report abuse why would i support hillary? more of the past? more of same from the same 20 years? barack is the first chance we've had since reagan to elect someone new! he has shown he can be creative and original and exciting...and none of those words would ever be used to describe hrc. posted by: davey jones | july 09, 2007 at 08:23 pm      report abuse this guy must get paid a bunch to have to say stuff like this day in and day out. is hrc the voice that you want in your living room every night? she has all of the charm of a cold sore. posted by: max entropy | july 09, 2007 at 08:26 pm      report abuse no republican will ever get my vote. hillary is the walking definiton of change. she will do a hellva better job than president cheney. question:are those weapons of mass destruction still missing.....think people! posted by: jay | july 09, 2007 at 08:31 pm      report abuse hillary was the guaranteed candidate long ago. the media has a vested inteerest in keeping the campaign going for as long as possible. edwards is dead and obama has been running on nothing other than being the "darling of the media for more than a year. posted by: pendragon | july 09, 2007 at 08:35 pm      report abuse i can't help but believe that hillary will be elected queen (oops...president). most of the american electorate is just plain stupid, they vote based on what the last 5 second news spin says. the news & media moguls love her, therefore she'll win. it's too bad, becasue we'll get another clinton in office who will govern on the results of the last news poll with the second criteria being on what is personally best for her. what is best for american is just a passing thought, if that. you've already seen it when she and bill were president. posted by: mark | july 09, 2007 at 08:36 pm      report abuse billinnewyork..... you must have "selective"memory syndrome. since u like to spit numbers, here's a few u missed.... over 40,000 troops killed in bush's war,think's he's above the law by pardoning his crimal buddy scooter libby,we are more hated around the world today since bush took office, china and russia are openly defying and us and making more and more "war" gestures everyday....after iraq,iran and syria are waiting in the wings....bush a good man...ha! wake up u idiot! posted by: jay | july 09, 2007 at 08:37 pm      report abuse dem dem you and bob strum. i'd guess you've had similar success. posted by: goplease | july 09, 2007 at 08:40 pm      report abuse so hillary is what? worse than anyone else out there? posted by: nick danger | july 09, 2007 at 08:40 pm      report abuse clinton, mccain, obama, rudy, it does not matter. unfortunately it took segregationist governor wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" republicans and democrats. the democrats willingly went along with the war in iraq, suspension of habeas corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "america deceived' from amazon, stealing private lands (kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. they are both guilty of treason. support dr. ron paul, he actually voted against the war. last link (before stark county district library bends to gov't will and drops the title): http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0 posted by: paul h | july 09, 2007 at 08:42 pm      report abuse i, or anyone i know, would not vote for hillary if she was the last candidate on earth. she is the biggest fake alive. she would destroy the country. posted by: roy | july 09, 2007 at 08:46 pm      report abuse aaron, you generalize bad things for both conservatives and liberals. my guess is you are neither. so i'll generalize that you're a nobody! aaron who? posted by: awkins | july 09, 2007 at 08:48 pm      report abuse it is inevitable, as will be a second term. sit back and enjoy almost a decade of brackish condescension. not to mention spin and scandal. if hill isn't elected no woman in our lifetime will be. she won't pick obama because her pollsters will tell her the us isn't ready to break both the gender and racial barriers so "early." richardson's a safer choice and at least will bring some sanity once the lamps start flying at pennsylvania avenue again. with hill the us electorate (or non-electorate) will get what it so richly deserves. posted by: ho hum | july 09, 2007 at 08:50 pm      report abuse i personally know several democrats who would go to the polls to vote against hillary no matter who the opponent happens to be. news of her impending victory seems premature. posted by: jp mct | july 09, 2007 at 08:53 pm      report abuse simply put, she may end up the democrat candidate but she will not win the white house. in my line of work i get to chat with literally hundreds of people each week. when i ask them would they vote for hillary they almost all say no. as for the men absolutely they all say no. not one male i have asked about this would want her president and most of them can imagine voting for a woman, just not hillary. as for the women, i hear the same thing at least 75% of the time, they will say one thing in front of a group of women but in private, they almost all say no. now don't get me wrong, it is always possible the republicans could screw up and provide the wrong candidate but at this point it is obvious we are heading towards a hillary vs. rudy race. bottom line, the first tuesday of november 2008, if that is the final race, rudy is your next president. if rudy is the guy on the right, the only hope in hell for the democrats is the return of al gore and even that isn't a sure win but at least it would be a fighting chance. posted by: d | july 09, 2007 at 08:56 pm      report abuse redefeat communism: vote against hillary in 08. posted by: marco | july 09, 2007 at 08:59 pm      report abuse if people thought gw bush was divisive,wait'll hrc gets in. bush will like a day at the beach in comparison. posted by: modd tymer | july 09, 2007 at 08:59 pm      report abuse i have five people with $100k each..that's half a million. this woman may ..and i stress may get a nomination bid, but, that's as far as she will get.. there's no chance at all she will ever become anything more than a white house guest. put your money where tour mouth is, and get with real polls. we will arrange to take your bet, through vegas, in a n.y. minute. posted by: sir lawrence | july 09, 2007 at 08:59 pm      report abuse

ben smith's blog - politico.com  Précédent 313  Précédent 312  Précédent 311  Précédent 310  Précédent 309  Précédent 308  Précédent 307  Précédent 306  Précédent 305  Précédent 304  Précédent 303  Précédent 302  Précédent 301  Précédent 300  Précédent 299  Précédent 298  Précédent 297  Précédent 296  Précédent 295  Précédent 294  Précédent 293  Précédent 292  Précédent 291  Précédent 290  Précédent 289  Précédent 288  Précédent 287  Précédent 286  Précédent 285  Précédent 284  Suivant 315  Suivant 316  Suivant 317  Suivant 318  Suivant 319  Suivant 320  Suivant 321  Suivant 322  Suivant 323  Suivant 324  Suivant 325  Suivant 326  Suivant 327  Suivant 328  Suivant 329  Suivant 330  Suivant 331  Suivant 332  Suivant 333  Suivant 334  Suivant 335  Suivant 336  Suivant 337  Suivant 338  Suivant 339  Suivant 340  Suivant 341  Suivant 342  Suivant 343  Suivant 344