On CNN, Jeffrey falsely asserted Clinton has "high negatives in her own party"
On the July 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Human Events Online editor Terry Jeffrey asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has "high negatives in her own party." In fact, recent polls show Clinton's unfavorable ratings among Democrats to be under 20 percent, which is comparable to those of the three leading Republican presidential candidates within their party.
A June 26-27 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 18 percent of Democratic respondents had an "unfavorable opinion" of Clinton, while 26 percent of Republican respondents had an unfavorable opinion of Sen. John McCain (AZ) and 15 percent of Republicans had an unfavorable opinion of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Clinton's favorable and unfavorable ratings among Democrats were both two points higher than former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's favorable and unfavorable ratings among Republicans. (In this same poll, less than 20 percent had an unfavorable opinion of each of the three leading Democrats -- with Sen. Barack Obama (IL) at 18 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) at 14 percent.)
Similarly, in a June 26-28 CBS News poll, 14 percent of Democrats had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, while 20 percent of Republicans had an unfavorable opinion of McCain and 12 percent of Giuliani. Romney's unfavorable rating among Republican respondents (8 percent) was lower than Clinton's rating among Democratic respondents, while Clinton's favorable rating was 45 points higher than Romney's in that poll, with most polled either undecided or not familiar enough with Romney to respond. (Less than 15 percent of Democrats had an unfavorable opinion of each of the three leading Democrats -- with Obama at 13 percent and Edwards at 12 percent.)
|
Fox News (June 26-27), within "own party" |
||||
|
Favorable |
Unfavorable |
Can't Say |
Never Heard |
|
|
Clinton |
77 |
18 |
5 |
1 |
|
Giuliani |
75 |
16 |
9 |
1 |
|
McCain |
57 |
26 |
14 |
3 |
|
Romney |
39 |
15 |
24 |
22 |
|
CBS News (June 26-28), within "own party" |
||||
|
Favorable |
Unfavorable |
Undecided |
Haven't Heard Enough |
|
|
Clinton |
69 |
14 |
16 |
1 |
|
Giuliani |
52 |
12 |
29 |
8 |
|
McCain |
34 |
20 |
35 |
10 |
|
Romney |
24 |
8 |
25 |
42 |
From
the July 5 edition of CNN's The
Situation Room:
DONNA BRAZILE (CNN political analyst): She doesn't really need an endorsement. She needs to go out there and convince the American people that this is not another four or eight years of [former president] Bill Clinton. This is four or eight years of Hillary Clinton, who will bring about much-needed change in this country.
JEFFREY: The good thing for my party about the emergence of Hillary is that she has very high negatives, not just across the country with Republicans. She has high negatives in her own party, even though she is likely to be the nominee.
Given that the war is likely to be the dominant issue and it's going to be tough for the Republicans to beat a Democrat in '08, it will be helpful if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, because it will motivate the conservative base and people who really don't like her to get out and vote.
BRAZILE: But her positives -- strong leader, someone who is decisive -- will outweigh all of those negatives that you mentioned.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX (host): And, Donna, who's the big Republican, the big get, the endorsement for Republicans?
Those 18% among Dems that don't like her all post on this website.
You are not far wrong. I think the lefties on this site are a bit to the left of the average Dem and Hillary has never been a liberal, us liberals certainly have problems with her.
Hillary has never been a liberal
Solon, how would you label her? Centrist like Bill?
Just curious which issues in particular you & other Liberals sharply differ with her on? I mean enough not to vote for her.
Her corporate links mainly. She's also a bit of a hawk but I think she's just overcompensating on that front. I am no fan of the DLC Democrats. Though Bill ran as an FDR type, he abandoned many of the social programs he promised and quickly became a centrist. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are more liberal. She did win over a good chunk of my old stomping grounds in heavily Republican upstate New York, I know that may come as a shock but Democrats don't usually fare well up near Corning and Ithaca and more rural areas but she is now holding fund raisers with great success there. She has to be a moderate to get that vote.
It's a matter of perspective, for instance I think a fellow Republican like RHINO seems to consider you too Liberal. I find you to be a moderate conservative, and way more conservative than I could ever be. I naturally lean left, but I am much closer to the Clintons on many issues than I am to Kucinich and Gravell. I consider myself a pragmatic Liberal but the Clintons are slightly to the right of me and the other guys are pretty left of me. I could only vote for Kucinich in an extreme circumstance. I couldn't vote for Gravell or Nader at all, I'd have to sit it out. Of course I voted for Bill Clinton and I will have no problem voting for Hillary Clinton if she should become the Democratic candidate, even though I am not 100% pleased with her voting record; and what was that silliness about the flag? That said, I haven’t made up my mind about a candidate yet. There are things that a like very much about several of the Democratic candidates.
I think Bing summed it up fairly well.
Hillary has the highest negative rating among Democrats, although it's true that it isn't that much higher than the other candidates and is not as high as some of the Republican candidates among Republicans. The real issue, though, as usual avoided by Media Matters, are he high negative ratings among all voters. There is a core group of people, on the left and the right, who wil just not vote for Hillary Clinton (myself included).
Personally, I'd just like this country to think outside the box a little here. Does it really have to be either a Bush or Clinton in the oval office? I am sick of the political dynasties. Hillary Clinton is no more deserving of being president than George W. was.
The Hillary conundrum is an odd one.
First, the Repub guy flat out lied or just didn't know the facts and took a pot shot with air.
Second, although I think Clinton may be the centrist among Obama and Edwards, I think she would need to far-righty Repub nominee in order to have a strong chance to win. I think if the Repubs nominate a Sarkozy-like Giuliani or Romney, and one of those two get at least a decent turnout from the religious right base, Clinton will have some issues.
I thought they had abandoned this rant, but I guess they've simply toned it down.
It seems little more than a month ago, these 'pundits' were sharing their 'insights' with us, as to the Senator from New York's standing, with Democrats...
"The 'liberals' and the 'anti-war wing' are FURIOUS with her!" they were breathlessly 'punditing'...
"...they're FURIOUS, and they're DEMANDING an apology from Mrs. Clinton, over her vote to authorize the president to topple sadaam's 'regime'..." they said repeatedly, the 'pundits' did.
It didn't work... they couldn't provoke a response, they couldn't provoke an apology from the Senator, by way of lies and other false 'intelligence' they were blathering, across the "media"...
It didn't work, not like it did the first time, when they blathered on about WMDs and bio- and chem-weapons and 'al qaida links' and 9/11 links and other lies and falsified 'intelligence'...
They couldn't provoke the Senator's response a second time, with "They're FURIOUS with you... you must apologize!"
Fool me once, shame on you...
Fool me twice, shame on me... for being so dumb to listen to and believe, 'pundits' on TV.
If you think the voracious anti-war left is NOT furious with Mrs. Clinton, then you are mistaken. In fact she was recently booed by that very group at a recent speech.
Yet she is not so stupid to apologize to them or placate them publicly, she is hoping to outlast them during the primaries and get to the general election - where she will flick them off with a hand gesture, if they're lucky.
Not necessarily Tommy. The same people who booed some of her comments about Iraq ended up giving her a standing ovation by the end. As long as she ends it, which she's vowed to do, she'll have no problem with the anti-war left. Also we learned our lesson with Nader in 2000. Most Democrats will rally behind her even if she doesn't have the "liberal" credentials.
The only thing I'm certain of right now is that the anti-war folks who are furious with Clinton are the anti-war folks who are furious with her. No, that's not a typo.
Consider that a majority of people seem to be opposed to the war in Iraq. Yet, the polls also indicate that a majority approve of candidates that were (or are) everything but opposed to Iraq. I can only think of two explanations off-hand; a) most anti-war voters are unaffiliated or b) most voters aren't paying attention.
Actually, I guess there's one other possibility...apathy.
I have to admit that I'm not "furious" at her, just very disappointed, as I am with any democrat who voted to give the decision of military action to the president. That to me was abdicating a responsibility inherent in their office. Frankly, I'd be enthusiastic to vote for ANY candidate who appeared to buck political expediency for principles. Hillary has not shown that she's the one.
I am part of the anti war left, SERIOUSLY anti war. I am not furious at Clinton, why would I be, she is just being herself. I never expected anything else from her.
I have to agree with you, as long as by "being herself" you mean that she shamelessly voted for the war because there was too much GOP hot air out there for her to actually take a principled stance on the war. Come on, she knew the intelligence was BS, she knew there was no threat, just like anyone who wasn't scared (quite literally) stupid by the Bush admin.'s "smoking gun a mushroom cloud" rhetoric. Hillary, like so many "centrist" dems cares about her own ability to gain and hold power. See also: Joe Lieberman. Hillary Clinton doesn't have a single principle that would survive a poll that says her principle will cost her votes. She voted for the war knowing it was built on lies, and she kept her head down until it public opinion made it safe for her to "Speak out". Then she started attacking the president and the war she enabled. Some class.
I guess it didn't go away, because there it is, right there again...
"The 'liberals' and the 'anti-war wing' are FURIOUS with her!"
"...they're FURIOUS, and they're DEMANDING an apology from her!"
...except this time it's not a 'pundit' on TV, just some anonymous Bush boot-licking hack posting on the Internet Wire.
Who cares...
"Look in the mirror.."
"Those who throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses.."
etc. etc.
"BRAZILE: But her positives -- strong leader, someone who is decisive -- will outweigh all of those negatives that you mentioned."
I can only speak for myself, but our latest strong, decisive leader has clearly illustrated how those traits don't necessarily translate to "positives". Granted, he was hindered by the deficit of a brain with which to demonstrate them at their most favorable, but still...
JEFFREY:...Given that the war is likely to be the dominant issue and it's going to be tough for the Republicans to beat a Democrat in '08, it will be helpful if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, because it will motivate the conservative base and people who really don't like her to get out and vote."
That's nice. She has the advantage of not being (completely) on the side of the bunglers who masterminded the WOT fiasco, but the good news for the GOP is that their base will be motivated by their personal hatred of her.
And as many self-proclaimed Hillary-haters as I ask, I still haven't gotten one substantial answer as to why they hate her.
I have my reasons for not being crazy about her, but I'm sure they're very different than the reasons of those who would be driven to vote Republican by her candidacy.
I guess the bottom line is that Hillary would likely be a dangerous candidate for the dems, should she get the nomination, stoking the emotional fire and creating an atmosphere of uncertainty among the non-partisans.
On the other hand, campaign season would be a blast, as I'm sure the republican machine would eventually throw a rod in its frenzy of negative ad production...
I don't hate Hillary. I just don't think she's done a damn thing in her life to justify being president, and I don't think she has any values at all. She is a political hack with no vision, except for seeing herself in the White House. I would like a leader. Hillary is not a leader, she is a follower. She followed on Bill's coattails, she followed her beltway consultants into the Iraq quagmire, she followed public opinion against the war she originally enabled. I don't hate Hillary, in fact I might hold my nose and vote for her if she gets the nomination. But you can't make me like her. And for that matter, why don't the Hillary supporters explain why they like her? What is her vision? What tough, unpopular stands could you see her making, just because she thinks it's right?
Why do they like her?
She ain't Bush. She might even be the anti-Bush. And, she brings back fond memories of a time when the worst *I* had to worry about were which Repugnant "official" or "editorialist" or "announcer" was calling for Bill to be hanged today, while *I* had to wonder how the media kept producing such large chunks of excrement dressed as human beings.
Why do they hate her? Faux News told them to.
I do respect the work that Media Matters does, but let's face it. You guys selectively pick poll results and cherry-pick information as it suits the point you want to make just as much as the Republicans do. This story is a prime example of that. I've seen too many polls to count, polls of Democrats, where high levels of unfavorability towards Clinton were part of the findings. In fact, I'd say this poll shows the lowest unfavorability level for her that I've ever seen!
More people would respect what Media Matters does if you did make more effort to be unbiased yourselves.
If it is so easy to find polls to fit an agenda, and since you clearly have your own agenda, please easily find a poll that shows a different outcome that has as much credibility as the TWO sourced in this thread. I'm waiting.
You're wrong friend. One of the lamest assumptions is that the left behaves just like the right. I can only speak for myself and my observations but I tend to look at all available information and not just cherry picking. I'm sure some liberals might but I don't see it here on MMfA. All too often your assumption is used as an excuse to dismiss information you might not agree with. I wouldn't necessarily trust this site implicitly but they aren't head hunters. Conservatives lie enough, there is no need to manufacture or cherry pick to prove that.
Bing, cherry picking....
The pieces are there, and I'm just itching to begin assembly.... but alas, it's beyond my reach today. And on Friday, no less.
I blame global warming.
Neon, usually a King
Of Comedy couldn't dig up a thing
The mid-week vacation
caused mental stagnation
Couldn't even hook up cherry and Bing
I blame the ACLU!
Happy weekend everybody, write your representatives! ya hear?
I was furious with Hillary and all the other Dems who vote "yes" on the war authorization. I am furious at all Dems who now say they didn't read the authorization or the authorization did not give junior the right to start this war. That was their job. How can you vote to authorize any war without knowing all the facts? How can you be willing to risk lives without knowing all the facts? How can you give authorization to a President who has the knowledge of a 5 year old?
But with all that said, if she is the candidate in the general election, she has my vote. She is many things but she is a bright, articulate and very intelligent which we haven’t had in the last 6 years.
I cannot vote for any of the fear, fear and more fear Republican candidates. I understand that this is a threat and would appreciate a candidate taking the steps necessary to try to secure our weak areas not using “fear” as a tool to retain power. I’ve had enough of that.
Maybe your work area is to big, or your not keeping up with the expansion of the universe. Dark matter keeping you down? Sequins can help here, do not mistake them for spangles though or you may find yourself holding the anchovies in more ways than one.
I think the more telling figure in this story is the fact that John Edwards has the lowest unfavorables of all the Democrats...
Of course, why would anyone in the MSM start covering Edwards politically now, when they've ignored all but the superficial about him for months.
And yes, in the interest of full disclosure, I am an Edwards supporter...
--poligirl
I've seen polls that 18 - 21% of self-identified Democrats won't vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. I think thats the rub, not her negative ratings. I've voted for candidates on the lesser-of-2-evils rationale or just not voted so I don't think negative approval ratings tell the story about how someone will vote. With Hillary Clinton its: How many people will be determined to keep her out of the presidency? Will they vote for any Republican to stop her ascension to the presidency?
It's all up to the primary process next...the big media circus and spending spree is about to begin...again. If the money is any indicator, it'll turn into Obama vs Clinton by the end. Any Democrats who finally get the sense to jump ship are unlikely to vote Republican in protest, I think. There will be a surge in the minority party vote next year. 5 years of war now, 6 by then. The people are getting fed up with fascism.
Coment on Friday was for a coment by Bing, which diapeared. One of the stranger predictions I've heard was on Mc Group. Pat Buchanon thinks Hillary will take it all the way to the white house. Whats his track record on presidential predictions?
Hillary is a weak character. She's never won any fights on policy because she never fights for anything except her next title. She has no policy, no plans, just wants to get back into the presidential palace. If she wins, she might break records for time spent living there. She's consistently voted right-wing, all she's got to run on is a name and her gender. Her judgement is always towards the bad, her much-vaunted intelligence a total myth....takes no brains to beg for money for a living, which is what our politicians spend a LOT of time doing. Doesn't leave much time to ponder policy or study legislation. She's got a third-rate political brain, any real historian can tell you that. Her government is guaranteed to fail as well. A series of weak emperors as an empire overreaches and decays. A little bit of history repeating.