A month and a half after a Washington Post/ABC News poll found that possible 2008 presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) had a 54 percent favorability rating; that 57 percent of respondents would definitely vote for her or consider voting for her in 2008; and that strong majorities of Americans find her to be a “strong leader,” “an open and friendly person,” and “honest and trustworthy,” the Post ran a front-page July 13 article that purported to look "[b]eneath these positives" and sought out Democrats and independents expressing the “evidence of unease” surrounding Clinton found in that poll. In the same poll, respondents were asked about their views of another possible 2008 presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who had a nearly identical favorability rating to Clinton's -- 55 percent. Media Matters for America asks: Will the Post also seek out Republicans and independents expressing unease about McCain?

As Media Matters for America noted when the May 11-15 poll on the favorability of Sen. Clinton was released, Post staff writer Dan Balz wrote: “Hillary Clinton has a populist streak that sometimes takes on an angry edge, in contrast to her husband.” However, Balz offered no evidence or documentation to support this assertion. In fact, the poll indicated that strong majorities of Americans do not view Clinton as “angry” -- 67 percent of respondents did not think Clinton “seems to be an angry person,” and 58 percent considered her “an open and friendly person.” Balz also failed to mention Clinton's 54 percent overall favorability rating.

The Post's July 13 article suggests that the paper set out to fill in the supporting evidence that Balz's article lacked. In the July 13 article titled: “Beyond the Poll Numbers, Voter Doubts About Clinton,” staff writer Lois Romano wrote:

Clinton's assets are formidable: an unrivaled ability to generate publicity and money, and approval ratings that are notably strong, given her polarizing reputation and the controversies she has weathered over 15 years in the national eye. In recent public opinion polls, she handily leads potential Democratic rivals.

Beneath these positives, however, there is evidence of unease -- about her personal history, demeanor and motives -- among the very Democratic and independent voters she would need to win the presidency.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll highlighted the paradox. Fifty-four percent of those responding view her favorably, and a significant majority give her high marks for leadership (68 percent), strong family values (65 percent), and being open and friendly (58 percent). At the same time, only 37 percent of Democrats in the poll say they would definitely vote for her for president.

A Gallup poll from last summer also highlighted a perception that she is too divisive, with 53 percent of respondents saying they do not view her as someone who would “unite the country and not divide it.”

Follow-up interviews with skeptical Democrats and independents who participated in the Post-ABC News poll suggest that many view her as an inscrutable public figure who gets high marks for her ability and intellect but who nonetheless gives them pause because they find it difficult to relate to her on a personal level.

Indeed, all the respondents quoted in the article expressed either an unfavorable view of Clinton, their aversion to voting for her, or both. The Post did not indicate whether it had even contacted anyone representing the majority of respondents (57 percent) who indicated they would definitely or at least consider voting for Clinton, or representing the “significant majority” that gave her “high marks for leadership (68 percent), strong family values (65 percent), and being open and friendly (58 percent).”

Conversely, following a January 23-26 Post/ABC News poll that found that President Bush's approval rating had dipped to 42 percent, the Post published an article by staff writer David Finkel, who traveled to Utah -- to “the place where they like George W. Bush more than any other place in America” -- and reported that “within that 42 percent are places where approval of Bush remains high.” Finkel quoted several Utahans gushing over Bush, including one who said regarding the high cost of prescription drugs: “It's a problem from the drug companies to the lawyers to the doctors to Congress, and it's not because Bush isn't a caring man. I think he's a very caring man. I think he's a decent, God-fearing person, and I hope we are, too.”

Moreover, the May 11-15 poll cited by the Post also asked for the public's view of McCain, another presumptive 2008 presidential candidate. According to the poll, McCain and Clinton had almost identical favorability ratings (Clinton's 54 percent compared to McCain's 55 percent). Also, ABC News' analysis of the poll, posted on the ABC News website, found that “Clinton's challenge” for winning in 2008 “is the mirror image of McCain's.” According to ABC's analysis:

She's strong in her base -- good for getting nominated -- but weaker in the center, and strength there is critical in a general election. McCain, despite recent attempts at repositioning, remains better placed for a general election but with less of the partisan base it takes to win the nomination in the first place.

For example, 37 percent of Democrats at this early stage say they'd “definitely” support Clinton, while just 11 percent of Republicans say they're definitely with McCain. It's very similar among ideological groups: Thirty-five percent of liberals are definitely for Clinton, compared with 10 percent of conservatives “definitely” for McCain.

What McCain lacks in base support he gains in the center. More than half of Democrats say they'd at least consider him, compared with just one in four Republicans who'd at least consider Clinton. And Independents -- the quintessential swing voters -- are 12 points more likely to say they'd at least consider McCain than Clinton.

All told, two-thirds say they'd at least consider voting for McCain, while 57 percent would at least consider Clinton. Either, it should be noted, is enough to elect a president.

The Post, however, has given no indication that it will examine reservations that some in his party might have about a McCain candidacy, including a lack of support in the conservative base of the party, as indicated by its own poll. Indeed, Republican and independent voters may find similar faults in McCain as the Democrats quoted in the Post's July 13 article found in Clinton. One of the Clinton critics was quoted as saying he was “bothered” by 15-year-old reports that Clinton “was verbally abusive to employees.” The Post could investigate how Republican voters react to reports of McCain's quick temper and poor treatment of colleagues. On December 13, 1999, the Boston Globe's Walter Robinson reported:

But here in Arizona, some prominent Republicans echo the concerns of the former Democratic mayor. Recent public notice about McCain's temper, they believe, has obscured a larger issue voters ought to ponder when they measure him against the demands of the Oval Office: It is not so much the temper, they say, but what prompts him to lose it: His frequent unwillingness to accommodate dissenting views, even those of average citizens; his sometimes bullying insistence that other politicians do his bidding; and his tendency to treat those who disagree with him as disloyal.

[...]

But even some of McCain's supporters, among them politicians whose endorsement of his candidacy is prompted in part by fear of his temper, say they wish the underlying discontent could be so simply explained away.

“In a crisis, he's the calmest person in the room,” said Lisa Graham Keegan, the elected state superintendent of public instruction, who supports McCain. But Keegan, who has experienced McCain's anger, added, “When he loses it, it's over the small stuff. It's almost as if there's a magic word that no one knows, but that when someone says it, it sets him off.”

Over the years, unfavorable news coverage has sometimes provoked McCain; he has publicly castigated reporters as “liars” and “idiots.”

Even bystanders say they have been browbeaten by McCain: Richard Silverman, director of the Salt River Project, an Arizona utility, was berated by McCain in the Senate dining room in 1994 after his daughter, Amy Silverman, wrote unflattering pieces about McCain for the Phoenix New Times, a weekly. Although McCain's recollection of the incident was much more benign than the version told to the Globe by an eyewitness, McCain nonetheless sent Silverman a letter of apology.

“There are a lot of those letters floating around,” one of the senator's former aides said.