P
paulnotbilly
Guest
Found this on Wing TV, I've highlighted some of it as it 'appears' to show how her own party doesn't seem to want her in power as much as GWB (although this could be smoke & mirrors to help someone more acceptable to the public get into power):
http://www(dot)chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=22960&catcode=13
Dems Hate Hillary More than Bush
Written by Gregory Borse
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Who do the Democrats of New Hampshire hate more than Bush? Why, Hillary Clinton, of course.
The Boston Herald has run a story, by Business Columnist Brett Arends (go here), about focus-group polling among Democrats in New Hampshire that sheds light on a curious phenomenon from outside the Washington D.C. bubble. It seems that a very real antipathy for Hillary Clinton is growing among grassroots Democrats and that it has thus far gone largely unremarked among the party elite.
The folks at the Daily Kos were abuzz about the numbers yesterday-- go here, see 2008: Hillary Hate in New Hampshire. And many of them agreed with the "vitriol" spewed against Ms. Clinton by Dems in New Hampshire.
One Kossack, "Eugene," put it this way: Until the last few years many of us felt supportive of her. We rejected the right-wing smears. And how did she repay us? By cozying up to Bush and the same right wing. Arguing we need to rethink our strong stance on abortion rights. Wasting time worrying about violent video games instead of violent Republican government. Her transparent attempts at appeasing the right led many of us to believe she was indeed Machiavellian, power-mad, utterly untrustworthy.
If she were to merely remain Senator, this level of vitriol would not exist. But she clearly seeks the presidency, and the vast majority of us DO NOT want her to be that. It's the combination then of her play for the presidency and her selling out of our basic core values that creates this disdain.
And yeah, her handlers and the beltway Dems are deeply deluded if they think this can be overcome. Hillary is the dictionary definition of unelectable.
The above is a rather cogent distillation of the majority of comments to be found about the article at The Daily Kos. Some defend Ms. Clinton's apparent strategy of positioning herself in the center in order to win the Presidency so that she can then govern from a more "progressive" position-but others point out that her husband disappointed them in this regard and are afraid that Hillary is cut from the same cloth.
Arends' column cites recent focus group polling by Dick Bennett, who runs American Research inc., an independent polling company Arend calls "highly regarded." The columnist quotes Bennett as saying "I was amazed . . . I thought there might be some negatives, but I didn't know it would be as strong as this. It's stunning, the similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments they have about her."
And what kinds of comments could cause a seasoned pollster to scratch his head thus?
"Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician."
And such comments were attributed, according to the article, to nearly* half of those polled. And they were all Democrats.
As the primary fight between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont may or may not indicate today, any move to the center among Democratic politicians with aspirations for Washington D.C. offices is being met not only by the most left-leaning party-members (those at the Daily Kos, for instance) but by what Arends calls "ordinary, grass-roots" Democrats with not only disdain, but outright hostility.
Howard Dean's elevation from failed presidential nominee to head of the DNC (since, in Washington, as in Hollywood, people fail upwards) was not really the first indication of a crack-up in the Democratic Party-it began long before and is now, perhaps, coming to something of a watershed. The 2006 midterm elections will likely not constitute a full sea-change in the power structure of the Democratic Party, but the 2008 Presidential Primaries are primed for just such an event.
Despite the two-terms the Democrats enjoyed in power in the White House with the Clintons, since 1994, the Democrats have little to crow about regarding their ability to convince the American public that they represent "the people."
The frustration at the Daily Kos is not simply rooted in anger at the ascendancy of conservatism in the United States since the Reagan years. It's rooted in the very real disconnect between the Democratic Party elite with its base-which has leaned increasingly left since the days of President Carter.
Gone are the days of Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whose seat in the Senate Hillary Clinton now enjoys. With the exception of Joe Lieberman-a principled liberal-Moynihan was perhaps the last of the great Liberals for whom the ideology actually had real teeth (I mean that he believed what he believed and one could respect him for that, even as one disagreed-is there not something to the rumors that Moynihan himself was disgusted that Hillary Clinton would succeed him?).
But now even Democrats smell a rat. They are sick-as Republicans are sick-of politicians who lick their fingers and stick them in the air to find out how they are to behave.
George Bush is hated by one side because he has refused to do this. Hillary Clinton is now, seemingly, hated by the same side for doing precisely the opposite. Lunacy has not yet worked for Al Gore. Serial pandering has likewise so far failed for John Kerry. Between lunacy and pandering, what option is left for Hillary Clinton in the '08 race?
Watching the midterm elections and the Presidential Primaries unfold, it will be interesting to see the Democratic Party discover who it is-again.
*Author's Note: An alert reader pointed out that in my original article, I wrote that "over half" of those polled by Bennett expressed such negative views of Ms. Clinton. The percentage was 45%--nearly half, not over half. I regret the misrepresentation. It was not intentional.
About the Writer: Gregory Borse is the editor of the Writers' Section of ChronWatch. He holds a Ph.D. from Louisiana State University, and an MA and BA from the University of Dallas. Dr. Borse, a family man with "a beautiful wife and five beautiful children," enjoys writing, current events, media, politics, and disc golf. Gregory receives e-mail at gregorbo@sbcglobal(dot)net.
http://www(dot)chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=22960&catcode=13
Dems Hate Hillary More than Bush
Written by Gregory Borse
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Who do the Democrats of New Hampshire hate more than Bush? Why, Hillary Clinton, of course.
The Boston Herald has run a story, by Business Columnist Brett Arends (go here), about focus-group polling among Democrats in New Hampshire that sheds light on a curious phenomenon from outside the Washington D.C. bubble. It seems that a very real antipathy for Hillary Clinton is growing among grassroots Democrats and that it has thus far gone largely unremarked among the party elite.
The folks at the Daily Kos were abuzz about the numbers yesterday-- go here, see 2008: Hillary Hate in New Hampshire. And many of them agreed with the "vitriol" spewed against Ms. Clinton by Dems in New Hampshire.
One Kossack, "Eugene," put it this way: Until the last few years many of us felt supportive of her. We rejected the right-wing smears. And how did she repay us? By cozying up to Bush and the same right wing. Arguing we need to rethink our strong stance on abortion rights. Wasting time worrying about violent video games instead of violent Republican government. Her transparent attempts at appeasing the right led many of us to believe she was indeed Machiavellian, power-mad, utterly untrustworthy.
If she were to merely remain Senator, this level of vitriol would not exist. But she clearly seeks the presidency, and the vast majority of us DO NOT want her to be that. It's the combination then of her play for the presidency and her selling out of our basic core values that creates this disdain.
And yeah, her handlers and the beltway Dems are deeply deluded if they think this can be overcome. Hillary is the dictionary definition of unelectable.
The above is a rather cogent distillation of the majority of comments to be found about the article at The Daily Kos. Some defend Ms. Clinton's apparent strategy of positioning herself in the center in order to win the Presidency so that she can then govern from a more "progressive" position-but others point out that her husband disappointed them in this regard and are afraid that Hillary is cut from the same cloth.
Arends' column cites recent focus group polling by Dick Bennett, who runs American Research inc., an independent polling company Arend calls "highly regarded." The columnist quotes Bennett as saying "I was amazed . . . I thought there might be some negatives, but I didn't know it would be as strong as this. It's stunning, the similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments they have about her."
And what kinds of comments could cause a seasoned pollster to scratch his head thus?
"Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician."
And such comments were attributed, according to the article, to nearly* half of those polled. And they were all Democrats.
As the primary fight between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont may or may not indicate today, any move to the center among Democratic politicians with aspirations for Washington D.C. offices is being met not only by the most left-leaning party-members (those at the Daily Kos, for instance) but by what Arends calls "ordinary, grass-roots" Democrats with not only disdain, but outright hostility.
Howard Dean's elevation from failed presidential nominee to head of the DNC (since, in Washington, as in Hollywood, people fail upwards) was not really the first indication of a crack-up in the Democratic Party-it began long before and is now, perhaps, coming to something of a watershed. The 2006 midterm elections will likely not constitute a full sea-change in the power structure of the Democratic Party, but the 2008 Presidential Primaries are primed for just such an event.
Despite the two-terms the Democrats enjoyed in power in the White House with the Clintons, since 1994, the Democrats have little to crow about regarding their ability to convince the American public that they represent "the people."
The frustration at the Daily Kos is not simply rooted in anger at the ascendancy of conservatism in the United States since the Reagan years. It's rooted in the very real disconnect between the Democratic Party elite with its base-which has leaned increasingly left since the days of President Carter.
Gone are the days of Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whose seat in the Senate Hillary Clinton now enjoys. With the exception of Joe Lieberman-a principled liberal-Moynihan was perhaps the last of the great Liberals for whom the ideology actually had real teeth (I mean that he believed what he believed and one could respect him for that, even as one disagreed-is there not something to the rumors that Moynihan himself was disgusted that Hillary Clinton would succeed him?).
But now even Democrats smell a rat. They are sick-as Republicans are sick-of politicians who lick their fingers and stick them in the air to find out how they are to behave.
George Bush is hated by one side because he has refused to do this. Hillary Clinton is now, seemingly, hated by the same side for doing precisely the opposite. Lunacy has not yet worked for Al Gore. Serial pandering has likewise so far failed for John Kerry. Between lunacy and pandering, what option is left for Hillary Clinton in the '08 race?
Watching the midterm elections and the Presidential Primaries unfold, it will be interesting to see the Democratic Party discover who it is-again.
*Author's Note: An alert reader pointed out that in my original article, I wrote that "over half" of those polled by Bennett expressed such negative views of Ms. Clinton. The percentage was 45%--nearly half, not over half. I regret the misrepresentation. It was not intentional.
About the Writer: Gregory Borse is the editor of the Writers' Section of ChronWatch. He holds a Ph.D. from Louisiana State University, and an MA and BA from the University of Dallas. Dr. Borse, a family man with "a beautiful wife and five beautiful children," enjoys writing, current events, media, politics, and disc golf. Gregory receives e-mail at gregorbo@sbcglobal(dot)net.
