WSJ editorial baselessly suggested that there are not "a lot of Democrats who feel passionately" about Sen. Clinton
A January 18 Wall Street Journal editorial focusing on potential Democratic candidates for president in 2008 suggested that there are not "a lot of Democrats who feel passionately about" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). The editorial cited no data, and recent polls do not support the Journal's conclusion.
The Journal editorial stated:
If we were betting on a wild card challenger, we'd look instead to Al Gore. The former Vice President has been coy about his intentions. But he might be getting a ton of free publicity for his global warming "documentary" come Oscar time, and there's little doubt he could raise money if he got in. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, there are a lot of Democrats who feel passionately about him and his near-win in 2000.
A November 13-19, 2006, Quinnipiac University poll asked respondents to "rate the warmth of their feelings" toward "some of our political leaders" from 0-100 "using something called a feeling thermometer." The question told respondents that "[t]he higher the number, the warmer or more favorable you feel toward that person." Clinton's "Mean Rating" for this particular question was 49.0 while Gore's was 44.9. But among Democrats, 40 percent rated Clinton in the range of 81-100 of the "feeling thermometer," and 32 percent rated her in the 61-80 range. Twenty-seven percent of Democrats put Gore in the 81-100 range while 32 percent rated him between 61-80.
The Journal's own poll conducted December 8-11 with NBC News found that when asked to rate "feelings" toward a particular public figure, 21 percent of those polled had "very positive" feelings toward Clinton, while 22 percent said "somewhat positive." While this particular poll did not ask about Gore, a June 9-12, 2006, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll did ask respondents to gauge their feelings toward Gore. Ten percent had "very positive" feelings, and 20 percent said "somewhat positive." Both Clinton and Gore had similar "very negative" feeling results, 26 percent and 25 percent, respectively. While the polls were conducted six months apart, they offer recent data that comes closest to measuring the public's "passion[]" for the candidates. Given the dearth of other more relevant data, the Journal editorial's assertion is, at best, baseless.
But my first choice would be Wes Clark.
Second: Al Gore
Third: Hillary Clinton
Obama will be a great VP for any of them, and ensure victory.
Additionally, in the quinnipiac poll, 1/3 of those polled rated Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Bush in the lowest, coldest range on the scale...just to add a little balance to mmfa's report.
because the point was the wsj was talking about how democrats feel about her.
the edit page makes stuff up, doesn't own up to mistakes writes stuff without checking all sides, and contradicts stuff reported by paper's own news papges
I know almost no one Republican, Democrat, or whatever who is indifferent to Hillary Clinton. To suggest large groups of Democrats do not feel passionately about her is goofy. Everyone on this board has one or another deeply held conviction on Sen. Clinton. After this statement people should realize it is the Journal people should feel less than passionate about buying.
Its an editorial so its mostly what the editor is thinking. He bases his opinion on his reality. I'm actually not surprised at all by this statement, because that is actually how I feel. I've never thought she was a strong orator or had very different views from any other candidate around her party. I would not have any passion about her winning an election because I think there are many candidates in front of her that have a better chance of winning and making change.
that is the point here. he is making a statement that does not seem to reflect most democrats opinion of her.
- there are not "a lot of Democrats who feel passionately about" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton - WSJ
A new Zogby poll shows Obama beating Clinton and Edwards in N.H....Obama 23%...Edwards 19%...Clinton 19%.
Yikes...so much for passion...81% in N.H. support someone other than Hillary.
The statement that "Unlike Mrs. Clinton, there are a lot of Democrats who feel passionately about [Gore] and his near-win in 2000" does not strike me as "at best, baseless". For one thing, it is not so much an "assertation" as an observation. It is certainly not presented as the result of a scientific poll. Also, the statement that "a lot of Democrats feel passionate about...unlike Clinton" is not semantically equivalent to "Democrats don't feel passionate about Clinton", as MMA claims.
Neither Gore nor Clinton is usually associated with passion, except for the passionate hatrid of Clinton by some on the right--in some cases surpassing that of her husband. Yet, the "near-win"--some flatly call it a win--is most definitely the subject of passion. Also, since Gore supposedly got out of politics and stopped delivering exclusively focus group approved speeches, his new-found passion and oratorical skill has inspired passion in some.
Although the WSJ is among the usual suspects for publishing right-leaning editorials, the present one does not strike me as part of the overall disinformation campaign.