Skip to comments.Everyone Knows This Senator, and for 2008, That May Be Precisely the Trouble (Hillary Alert)
Posted on 12/04/2004 5:06:34 PM PST by nj26
WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 - In a race for the presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton faces a problem that has dogged her since her days as first lady: an entrenched bloc of voters who simply do not like her.
And her experience as a senator in New York shows that despite vigorous campaigning around the state since taking office, she remains an extremely polarizing figure who is unable to sway these voters to her side.
One poll after another shows that roughly one of three New Yorkers has an unfavorable opinion of Mrs. Clinton, a statistic that has not changed since she took office in 2001.
Nationally, her standing is worse, even as her aides prepare for what is emerging as a possible bid for president in 2008. Roughly 4 of 10 Americans disapprove of her, according to a recent poll by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.
The voters who disapprove of Mrs. Clinton are numerous and unshakable, and they have been around so long that they even have a name in political circles. Hillary haters.
Mrs. Clinton offered a revealing answer when asked recently whether Republicans might be hoping that she becomes the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008, since it would give the G.O.P. a divisive figure to run against.
Mrs. Clinton - who studiously avoids answering questions about her presidential ambitions - quickly responded. "We have a president who is quite polarizing - and very successful, I might add," Mrs. Clinton said during an appearance on NBC's "Today."
Mrs. Clinton's high unfavorability ratings may help explain why a discussion has begun among her advisers over whether she should skip a Senate re-election campaign in 2006 and instead focus all her energies on a race for the White House.
The most obvious challenge that Mrs. Clinton faces in running for both jobs is a compressed political calendar that leaves her very little room to maneuver: The Iowa presidential caucuses are held just 14 months after Election Day in 2006.
If Mrs. Clinton stuck to the schedule that John Kerry followed during this presidential election cycle, she would have to give a clear indication of her desire to run for the presidency a mere month after her Senate race was over.
But that seems unlikely, some political analysts say, because the timing would be awkward.
Yet some people close to Mrs. Clinton maintain that the tight calendar should not be a problem because she is such a big celebrity, and any presidential campaign she embarks upon would instantly attract a huge amount of attention.
But other Democrats and independent political strategists say that her celebrity is a double-edged sword: While Mrs. Clinton does indeed enjoy a level of name recognition other politicians crave, she has earned a reputation that, fairly or not, makes her a polarizing figure among moderate swing voters, an important bloc nationally.
"There's work for her to do nationally," said Lee M. Miringoff, the director of the Marist institute. "Beyond her appeal to the Democratic base, there is a need for her to build bridges to reach out to moderate Republicans and independent voters if she hopes to succeed."
The so-called Hillary haters became a harsh reality of political life for Mrs. Clinton when she ran for the Senate. Republicans built much of their campaign on trying to tap anti-Clinton sentiments in New York State.
No one factor accounts for deep misgivings many voters express for Mrs. Clinton, but to some degree it stems from a view that has taken hold, fairly or not, that she is a hugely ambitious woman with a liberal agenda that was most significantly illustrated in her efforts to overhaul the nation's health care system during her husband's presidency.
Mrs. Clinton sought to counteract the damage posed by the anti-Clinton feeling by spending nearly two years traveling around the state in a calculated effort to force voters to re-examine what, if anything, is so objectionable about her.
Many Democrats and independent political strategists contend that Mrs. Clinton may have to do much the same nationally.
"To be successful nationally, she will have to defuse some of the negative feelings," Mr. Miringoff said. "One way to attempt that is to replicate what she did in with New York with her Listening Tour."
A Democratic political strategist on Capitol Hill agreed. "She may have 100 percent name recognition," the strategist said. "But it comes with a certain amount of baggage."
Even after her victory in New York, Mrs. Clinton has taken nothing for granted, continuing to travel around the state constantly, as if running a perpetual campaign.
The strategy has yielded dividends: Her popularity rating among New Yorkers reached a notable 61 percent in September, compared with 38 percent in February 2001, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll.
Mrs. Clinton's approach has been particularly effective with undecided voters. The number of people who told Quinnipiac pollsters that they had no opinion of her has been dropping - to 7 percent in September from 33 percent in February 2001.
But tellingly enough, her tireless efforts around the state have done little to assuage the misgivings of many. The number of New Yorkers expressing an unfavorable opinion of her has been about the same - roughly one in three - in the 22 polls Quinnipiac University has conducted since 2001.
But Mrs. Clinton's advisers contend that the poll findings have, in fact, been very good news for her, saying that many undecided voters became supporters once they got to know her.
"Show me a poll where she has lost ground," said one Democrat who is close to Mrs. Clinton. "You can't. They don't exist. She has been gaining supporters both in New York and nationally since she took office by virtue of her hard work."
Run, Hitlery, Run!
The author of this article doesn't even allow for the possibility that she could run for the Senate in 2006 and be beaten by Rudy Guiliani.
It would take more than a years long nationwide version of the "listening tour." She would be best off staying in the Senate and giving herself a right-wing makeover. I would absolutely love to see her play the pious, family-values, security-hawk for the next four years. It would be HILarious to see just how many of her sacred cows she would tip over the side in her quest for the Brass Ring. Hmmm, SHE might be the one to harpoon Micheal Moore and lead the Dems back towards the (seeming) center.
Yet again....the NYTimes....are we gonna have to endure this for the next 3 years?
This article is garbage from a journalistic perspective, and just talking points from her campaign.
The author states the case against Hillary in the first half, and then tries to systematically disprove it point-by-point in the second half, culminating in the final quote about her improving poll numbers.
The interesting point, though, is the quote from her about being "polarizing", when she says "We have a president who is quite polarizing - and very successful, I might add." That is her angle for 2008, to counter the questions about her "electability."
Gee, I can't imagine anyone disliking a paranoid anti-american who lies with every breath she takes.
She is a liar and criminal like her husband.
Also, I am sure anyone from her side reading this will, of course, twist the facts to make her look better.
The November 2004 election was the Bloody Angle of the Democrat Media. Hillary can't get any more than 45%, because no one pays any attention to the boobs on the toob any longer...
1 in 3 NY voters disapprove??
What the hell kind of spin is that?
That equals a 67% approval rating!
What does this even mean?
"Hillary can't get any more than 45%, because no one pays any attention to the boobs on the toob any longer..."
Her husband won with 43% in 1992.
"1 in 3 NY voters disapprove??"
I doubt that she has a 67% approval rating.
I think they are trying to nicely say this: when we conduct opinion polls, 33% of NY voters think Hillary should burn in hell, and would rather be represented by a live donkey in the Senate.
'Her HindA$$ Wide-Load' is dreaming of going all over the world and vacationing on our dime again - like she did when slick was in charge.
We need to do everything in our power to keep them OUT of our Whitehouse.
I don't doubt that you are right.
I just don't know how they pushed the poll.
>> "Her husband won with 43% in 1992." <<
Yes, but that was a three way race. With three active candidates, the vote is going to be more split.
Of course, they could pull the same deal, and pull in someone to be a 3rd party candidate. What is Buchanan doing in '08??
Don't worry about this (insert explicative here). The 2004 election did not go well enough for her. She needed Bush to win, and not by too much. She did get that thanks to her husband sending his cronies to sabatoge Kerry's campaign.
But her real problem was Congress. She needed the Dems to take the Senate and pick up strength in the House. She got neither. Overall, this election was such a blow-out that the Dems, this time, will wake up and recruit a legitmate non-liberal - after all, they despertly NEED to win.
The Dems will also realize that web sites like this will not permit the media to whitewash her past and transform her into a "moderate". She's toast - but hasn't figured it out yet.
What we Americans (you know, the red half that doesn't HATE this country, like the Dems) need to do is start watching for potential candidates, and then dig up dirt. Being Democrats, at a minimum, they've all got criminal records. Let's get some files opened up.
I actually heard her say the she "has always worshipped evangelically". I wonder what on earth she meant by that! I heard this on one of the talk radio programs shortly after the election.
Anybody else notice the author's repetitious use of the phrase "fairly or not" in an attempt to downplay her negative baggage? Does that mean that the author truly believes that the criticisms are fair and accurate, but wants to remain on speaking terms with the lefties in his workplace, neighborhood, and profession, hence he has given himself plausible deniability as cover?
"There's work for her to do nationally,"
Yeah, like figure out where to bury the bodies!
Come to think of it, I wonder where she stands on female gential mutilation. If I had to guess, she's understands the need for it, given that Muslims have always been such an oppressed group in this country.
Hitlery is the RAT nominee for '08 (whether they like it or not)...
Yes, I'm proud to say I'm a member of that vast right wing conspiracy group" hate hilary" .Dosen't she travel by broom?
Just ask Hillary supportrs ONE question: Which RED state in 2004 could she turn blue..?
it means another northeast liberal makin a fool of themselves running for president
"33% of NY voters think Hillary should burn in hell, and would rather be represented by a live donkey in the Senate."
They already have Chuck "Live Donkey" Schumer.
The lack of ability to do much of anything to conceal her nasty attitudes and desires precludes her from being a likely occupant of the WH as P; her previous occupancy was as a "policy moll." A lot of people know that some - maybe a lot - of X42i's disastrous behavior was due to her obstinate stupidity. I hope she runs; I wish the Dem party ill.
"Just ask Hillary supportrs ONE question: Which RED state in 2004 could she turn blue..?"
I hate to say it, but Hillary does have a chance of winning. If the GOP allows illegal alien amnesty, there will be hell to pay in the Southwest and Florida. Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. That could benefit a third party candidate (facilitating her election), or Hillary (if she moves to the right on immigration.)
Be careful what you wish for... If the Pubbies are stupid, and run Frist, she may win. Even Al Gore is more exciting than Frist.
As sd-joe already pointed out, that was in a three-way race, and the third party was a conservative.
We're not going to get fooled by a Perot-type media creation again, not with the Internet to burst the balloon of bullsh*t.
"We're not going to get fooled by a Perot-type media creation again"
I think it depends on the GOP nominee, and not the media. Social conservatives are going to have a hard time voting for Giuliani. And a lot of conservatives are very upset about illegal alien amnesty, and are going to have a hard time voting for an amnesty proponent like McCain.
Hillary is a sure loser IF the GOP nominates a conservative nominee with strong values and principles, which will stand in contrast to her opportunism and moral bankruptcy. But put an opportunist like McCain or a pro-abortion, twice-divorced candidate like Giuliani on the ticket, and we'll see.
Well, all I can tell you is that there are going to be some homeless little old ladies if Hillary runs for President.
Before the last election, I had occasion to be over at my mother's house (she's 81) and she had a few friends over. As I walked throught the room, saying "Hello" to everyone, Mom advised that they had been talking and had all decided that, whatever it takes, Hillary has to be defeated if she runs. So Mom says that she will sell everything that she has and contribute the money to defeat her. Then, she will move in with me. All of her little old lady friends were nodding in agreement. I was sure one of them was about to break out with a big "RIGHT ON SISTER!". I love my mother but I don't want to live with her. We have to start NOW getting the word out that a Hillary presidency will turn a lot of decent old ladies into homeless street people!
"Roughly 4 of 10 Americans disapprove of her,"
The other 6 out of 10 are stupid.
You are absolutely right. And those ladies have the right attitude. We need to bear any burden, pay any price to defeat this woman, and protect our democracy.
But we also can't revel in a false complacency, which was my point to other posters.
looking at Red States and Blue States, and Hillary possibly running..........
Is there any Red State that Hillary can expect to win if she runs? She can look to the Kerry Blue States as a base of support and can count on most of them. But what Red States is she going to carry to put her over the top? Idaho? Utah? Florida? Anywhere in the South? Maybe Ohio???? Looking at the map, it's hard to see her winning any states that Bush won. If Iraq goes badly, the economy tanks, and people are ready for a change, maybe she'll pull it off. Otherwise, I can't see what Red States she can win that would allow her to win a national election.
I am sure that the 30% diehard liberals who absolutely adore Hillary are saying to themselves right now, "If only it had been Hillary instead of Kerry."
It's interesting they report only 4 in 10 voters disapprove of Fat Ankles. My guess is its much higher than that, unless they asked 6 people in NYC and 4 people from upstate NY.
-Hillary Clinton- archives, comments, and opposition research --
-The Clinton Files--
-Murder, Inc. [repost] --
-Women in the Clinton Era: Abuse,Intimidation and Smears--
Hillary's delegates spit on and taunt Police Honor Guard at her Convention
Catastrophic intelligence Failure - Clinton's Bin Laden GATE
CIA Officials Reveal What Went Wrong Clinton to Blame
DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
And yes, that picture is the one of Hill kissing Suha Arafat ( "wife" of The Littlest Terrorist ) after Suha had accused the Israelis of poisoning Palestinian children...
You mention that Hillary could win some Mexican border states if she's moves right on immigration. I read last week that she is doing exactly that, and might make illegal immigration a major issue.
Once again I say to my fellow FReepers: we dismiss Hillary as too-liberal-to-be-elected at our peril. By 2008, an entire generation of voters will have come to adulthood since Hillary's 1993 health care debacle. They won't know her as the bare-fanged liberal we saw, and many will be hoodwinked into believing she is a pro-defense moderate.
I would like to see the Senate fashion a number of votes, on judicial confirmations and other issues, that will force Hillary's hand and expose her as the liberal she is.
Learn to enjoy it - their bleating is bloody hilarious.
Ah...ah...ah....not so fast, ken. Remember, this country elected the other Clinton....twice. Anything is possible when the candidate is as skilled as these two are at creating an image of what they aren't. We are all going to have to work VERY hard to unmask and expose her.
In New York the beast was able to run with NO real press conferences. That, however, was then and this is now. She wouldn't be able to get away with that today, let alone four years from now. The old media is on its death bed. It will not be able to help the beast lie. When she ignores the hard questions, the answers will be provided on this pages. Let's hope she's stupid enough to try.
Oh, we'll work hard, but, I'd remind you that Ross Perot elected Clinton..