Skip to comments.REVERSE MORPH FOR HILLARY
Posted on 03/01/2006 9:53:45 AM PST by Mia T
This is HARDBALL on MSNBC.
[NOTE: My comments in blue.]
MATTHEWS: We're back with Anne Kornblut of "The New York Times" and Dana Milbank of "The Washington Post." Let's talk about Gotham's candidates for president.
First, Rudolph Giuliani, the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, former mayor spent today, or the day in Orlando speaking to a conference of Evangelicals.
Dana, he's up to it, isn't he? This is below the radar. This is Rudy campaigning for president in the south.
MILBANK: This is about as convincing as Jerry Falwell at the gay pride parade.
MATTHEWS: You don't buy this?
MILBANK: Well, he can try to do it. But, look, he faces an awful uphill battle in winning over the typical Republican voter in a primary. Now, if the election was fought on national security, he is fine. But he's never going to convince them that he is one of them, that he is a religious conservative.
KORNBLUT: Right and not only that, but he's going to be in a death struggle with John McCain for the exact same constituency.
MATTHEWS: Let me tell you something. I'll say it here a thousand time. Watch Rudolph Giuliani. Watch him. Security is the issue in this country. Whoever is the next president is going to be seen as more on the ball than even this president on security and terrorism. This country is not going sort on terrorism. We are going to get smarter on it is my hunch.
And Rudy is the guy to do it. And he can be an SOB in many ways. But this country may really want an SOB, a really tough cop as the next president. So watch Rudy, I'm saying it.
Now here is Hillary Clinton, that other New Yorker in the subway series. A new Gallup poll just came out. "USA TODAY" Gallup poll, it shows that 16 percent say that they'll definitely vote for Hillary right now, 32 percent say they might vote for her. But here's the dagger in the back. Fifty-one percent say they would definitely not vote for Hillary Clinton already the campaign hasn't begun.
Now here is Hillary Clinton, that other New Yorker in the subway series. A new Gallup poll just came out. "USA TODAY" Gallup poll, it shows that 16 percent say that they'll definitely vote for Hillary right now, 32 percent say they might vote for her.
But here's the dagger in the back. Fifty-one percent say they would definitely not vote for Hillary Clinton already the campaign hasn't begun.
KORNBLUT: I mean, this is exactly what Democrats are worried about is that already people have made up their minds. I would argue, I guess, that it is awfully early. We all know how early it is to be talking about this.
KORNBLUT: Definitely? What does definitely mean? [Definitely means DEFINITELY.] You know, you would have to see how is the question exactly phrased, all that stuff. It is early. [Actually Anne, it is late. In fact, it is too late. The country knows exactly who this woman is, Anne.]
MATTHEWS: But there's lot of tooth behind that. If somebody tells a pollster, I've already made up my mind definitely.
KORNBLUT: And, look, I know more Democrats who believe this though than Republicans. A lot of Republicans say that this is a deceptive number, that once she gets out there with all of her money running against who, Giuliani or McCain, the numbers may not be that weak. [She has 100% name recognition, Anne. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Even when the sow isn't hillary.]
MATTHEWS: How much of that is don't throw me in that briar patch, Dana? We're so afraid of Hillary. Please don't run her against us. She'll kill us.
MILBANK: Anne is right that these polls are completely useless because you don't know what the alternative is. But the fact is that she... [Earth to Dana: 51% would vote for their mother-in-law before they would vote for HER.]
MATTHEWS: OK. McCain against Hillary. Who wins?
MILBANK: Well, that's fine. If you can tell me that's how it is going to turn out. But we don't know.
MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about these definite numbers in a poll. Do you believe the definite? Do you believe somebody right in 2006 knows how they are going to vote in 2008?
MILBANK: I think they definitely think that's what they are going to do right now, but they have no idea what they are going to be doing in a couple years. And Hillary is going to have the opposite problem of Rudy. And that is she's absolutely fine with her base if she decides to run. But she is seemingly incapable of crossing over.
MATTHEWS: The poll was taken over the week right through Sunday, the Gallup poll. And the Gallup poll is, of course, the most prestigious poll there is right now and has been for years.
Dana, do you think she's paying the price for her plantation remark last week?
MILBANK: Probably not. Because, once again, plays very well the base. The people who were objecting to it were never going to support her in the first case. And I really think the only thing that this is right now is do people recognize her name. [What is it you don't understand, here? We recognize her name, yes. And we abhor the person attached to that name. Get it?]
KORNBLUT: And I would add to that. It's 51 percent say definitely not. Remember the margin that's we've been talking about in the last few presidential races, 51 percent is terrible, but all she would have to do is bump it by a few numbers, a few percentage points and be OK. [I can see why Pinch hired you, Anne. Your Alice-in-Wonderland illogic is quintessential New York Times. With 100% name recognition and roughly 10% corruption recognition (thanks in no small measure to your rag), missus clinton has only one way to go. And it isn't up.]
... Anyway, thank you Anne Kornblut of "The New York Times," Dana Milbank of "The Washington Post."
Join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL. Right now it is time for "THE ABRAM'S REPORT" with Dan.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
" "mere exposure" is sufficient to increase an object's likeability".
Mia T. Bump
I dare the WashPost to add an unmorphed, unphotoshopped hillary as a control.
TYPO, should read: 'So now they're experimenting with reversing the process.'
Thank heavens for the Q Factor. Great work Mia...
thanx. Actually the WashPost deserves the kudos. What material. ;)
Another thoughtful post, Mia T!
In this case though, I'm hoping that the phrase "familiarity breeds contempt" rules the day.
... and I think, in this case, it does. ;)
LOL. You should e-mail the Compost your art and use of their work product in such an expressive fashion. *snicker*
Dr. Rice makes me so proud to be an American.
thx and bump :)
Young conservatives have found a way to keep the concrete clean................ frightening picture's of Hillary under glass, and a family of peregrine falcons has defied nature by building its nest on top of the Gulf Building. Peregrine falcons prefer to live on the edges of cliffs, but in this case, these magnificent birds-of-prey find the Gulf Building to be an adequate substitute nesting area and the resident pigeons plentiful prey.
Hillary lurks also.
Actually, this 'experiment' was a setup.
Social and experimental psychologists had determined decades ago that there is a correlation between facial features and presumed character traits.
The facial features in that idealized photo of hillary (e.g., wideset blue eyes, (surgery-assisted) absence of a frown) is consistent with positive presumed character traits. Conversely, McCain's features, e.g., the beady eyes, the frown) correlate with negative assumptions.
My guess would be Warner but for the 'corruptible' variable. clinton minions are invariably corrupt or corruptible.... Warner strikes me as neither.
Dull is not my fear!!!
I do think Richardson will be the VP - he's already grooming himself for the job.
The only change might be - if the wind says we aren't ready for hillary - then Richardson runs for Top Job and hillary for VP - and in that case I would suggest Richardson never turn his back, his front, his side, or better yet just count how many days it took to rid themselves of Foster!!!
DISINFORMATION FROM THE LEFT !!!
Trying to stop up from concentrating on the enema......... oh, enemy. ;-)
Just like the baseball coach of the opposing team who tells you his pitcher has a sore arm and won't throw well in the game.
I've been there against the Mets' John Matlack and others!
Making Hillary acceptable to most American voters will be like sucking 5 gallons of snot through a soda straw. But they're welcome to try.
Never watched it once. / Bttt
I watched the first episode... for research purposes. ;)
While I wouldn't put it quite that way, I think you've nailed it. ;)
Anyone else with her baggage, repulsiveness and mediocrity would be laughed off the stage.
Richardson is certainly corruptible enough and obsequious enough and dull enough and fat enough (and hispanic enough?) ;)
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
Criminals and their enablers are smarter than us. They have nuance and deception.
One of the reasons they don't do 'nuance' is their conviction that we're a bunch of idiots.
Norman Mailer just last night railed about 52% of Americans being stupid. Now while he has a point, statistically speaking, i.e., IQ's Gaussian distribution, he--and the rest of the leftist elitists miss the point.
Their fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.
While I agree that it is conceivable that the clinton agitprop machine and clinton corruption can overcome hillary's incompetence, repulsiveness, baggage and lethal danger, I disagree that a certain subgroup of Ds are not genuinely and strongly against her candidacy.
what these people -- Geffen, Ivins, Maher et al. -- have in common is that they care about their party; they know that hillary clinton is poison.
One thing about Richardson that may be a disqualifier: he exudes softness--not the sort of affect people want in wartime.
It will be interesting just how the media covers the newsbreaking story tonight about him. Could be a big one - it would be a big one if it were a Republican story!!!
$3.? million spent in new created/made-up State jobs.
The press does love him but I don't think anything remotely female sells during wartime. (See excerpt (above) from 'HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM.')
Was the story mentioned? I didn't hear it, but then, I skipped TV last night. ;)