I agree that she's got no horn and no tail.

Not to mention the benefit that she will derive from the desires of those who are somewhat less than enamored of her but would be willing to vote for her just for the pleasure of watching the heads explode among the uberboys at the Corner.

But she's still got that devilish vagina thing. Which scares them rightists worse than eternal punishment ever has.

Doesn’t the whole “polarizing� thing just divert attention from the pros and cons of Clinton as a candidate? What has all the hand wringing over Bush as a polarizing figure contributed to our understanding of what is actually happening?

Ironically, the only reason to vote for her is that she drives the Right bonkers. If they were less unhinged about her, she'd have nothing at all to offer.

Gore had a similar claim in response to his media reputation for being stiff and wooden. He said it lowered the bar, making it easy to for him exceed expectations. It's standard media horserace crap:

First he media creates a simplistic caricature of a candidate’s personality. Then the media breathlessly reports on how the candidate is turning this supposed liability into an asset. Spellbinding.

Dammit I said this last Spring. The Monthly beat me to it.

This is nonsense. Sure, some people will be surprised Hillary isn't as unlikable as they think she is, but that isn't necessarily going to translate into them liking her. Moreover, the way it normally works is that people simply look for things that reinforce their prejudices, not the other way around.

Republicans really wanted to believe George Bush was a decent guy, competent enough to be president and then turned a blind eye to all evidence to the contrary in not just one but two elections. And even today, a solid majority of Republicans tend to support the president generally. After all, almost nobody likes to admit they're wrong - not about Bush, not about Hillary.

People will vote for Hillary for other reasons, e.g. because they think she has the best chance of winning than the other Democrats, or because they like Bill, or because they will vote for any Democrat in the general election over a Republican. Few people who dislike Hillary today are going to be voting for Hillary tomorrow because they've had a change of heart about her personality.

Or to put it in more generic terms that are almost always true: 1) a political campaign can shape the perception of their candidate when voters do not already have an impression of that candidate; 2) opposition campaigns can push an opponent's negatives higher; 3) once a voter has formed a negative opinion of a candidate in their mind, it is extremely difficult for that candidate to reverse those negatives.

Hillary comes into the campaign with a major handicap in a general election: high negatives.

Not only are Hillary's negatives NOT going to go to go down, they're likely to GO UP once the opposition starts attacking her. That's just the way it works. She's simply a horrible choice for a candidate in terms of likability - far worse than Kerry. She'll be a lot easier to "Swift Boat" too.

You can bank on the fact that there will be plenty of people trashing Hillary in a general election as being some kind of ice queen/b*tch on wheels, etc. Hillary is simply a very easy target to drive up negatives on. More so than Kerry.

I think Clinton benefits more from people not understanding what her true policies are than she does from people thinking she's a devil incarnate.

Polls say Democrats tend to consider her the most liberal candidate running, when the reality is quite the opposite. She needs to continue that obfuscation if she wants to be elected.

Augustus is right. Although there is some outside chance there will be some who overcome their feelings, it seems really foolish to count on some made up theory to work and magically transform enough voters' minds to win.

Picking a candidate who is so alienating to many people, crossing your fingers, and putting all of your hopes in the good sense of the American voter is a risk that is not worth taking at this point in time with so much at stake.

The Republicans hatred of a Democrat is only an advantage. They can't think rationally about Hilary, certainly not rationally enough to plot a successful swift boat smear.

The Repblicans know how to smear a black guy, a military hero, a lawyer. They don't know to smear Hilary because they can't see through their hatred. And having thrown up everything they can for fifteen years they are out of ammo.

If the repugnants start bleating whitewater Hil asks why so much time spent on Whitewater by the press and none on the GOP culture of corruption, and besides no wrongdoing established.

A similar dynamic was working before the Bush/Kerry debates, if you recall. Kerry was being pumped up as Cicero reincarnated, in comparison with Bush the autistic kid. Lowering expectations for Bush while raising them for Kerry seemed to work in Bush's favor, despite general agreement that Kerry won all three debates. Now Clinton's in the lowered-expectation position.

And now we see that Sandy Berger finally has a job - he has joined the Hillary campaign.
What a wonderful group of people this Clinton clan gathers around themselves.

Ahh...the soft bigotry of low expectations. You gotta love it. It worked for Dubya, might as well work for HRC.

This worked for her in 2000. The mostly Republican upstate region of NY had very negative views of her when she began her Senate run. She spent a lot of time running around upstate, and her numbers steadily grew as people discovered she's far more likeable than they realized.
Since then, even in upstate NY, she is a very popular Senator, viewed as effective and hardworking for New Yorkers statewide (remember, she won reelection quite easily).

The real issue for Hillary is how well has Bush damaged the Republican branding effort. Frankly, I think she is going to win because, thanks to GWB, a whole lot of people (far more than the 30% she will never get) are sick and tired of Republicans. The Republican base will never vote for her, but if the Republicans are counting on Hillary hate to turn out their base, the election will be a landslide of historic proportions.

You might want to come over and take a look at what has kept Blue Girl up all weekend.

www.proctoringcongress@blogspot.com

The new layout isn't finished yet, but it is getting there.

Here is the correct address for Watching Those We Chose.

Zoomie:
She hasn't been given much of a race ever since Rudy dropped out during her original run. So I don't buy it all that much. Besides, it's interesting that people think she is the most liberal. Obviously, they have been watching too much TV or paying attention to Tweety way too much.

As an upstater, I would say Zoomie's right, at least to some degree. She is very good in personal appearances, and yes, turned out not to have a tail. She was also helped in both her Senate races by the Republican candidates being incredibly unlikable and lousy at public appearances. Nobody upstate even knew who Rick Lazio was, but a lot of people were prepared to vote for him because he wasn't Hillary. Until he showed up.

I also think that a lot of the more extreme Hillary haters chose to just not vote.

We've been living on momentum from the founding of the republic, but that is all grinding to a halt as we view the quality of the candidates and the self-serving, corrupt nature of Washington, which is now equal to that of any non-democratic country.

> A similar dynamic was working before the
> Bush/Kerry debates, if you recall. Kerry was being
> pumped up as Cicero reincarnated, in comparison
> with Bush the autistic kid. Lowering expectations
> for Bush while raising them for Kerry seemed to
> work in Bush's favor, despite general agreement
> that Kerry won all three debates.

As I recall, "Shrub's" numbers dropped slightly after the debates as Kerry finally got a chance to speak for himself. Until this point he had been mercilessly savaged and ridiculed by the Swift Boaters and a zillion other right wing attack ads, whereas "the Decider's" skill as a war president had been similarly inflated.
---
The bottom line is Kerry edged closer in the polls during and after the debates; it just wasn't good enough for him to win the election.

MARCU$

Low expectations worked for Bush, particularly in the debates against Al Gore, which Bush "won" despite being awful IMHO.

Hillary's "low expectations" are less specific. How does one come across as not the devil?

It seems to me that the most successful candidates can project a charisma that makes them seem sincere and likable: Bill Clinton, Ike, JFK, Reagan, FDR. (As Flanders and Swann advise, "Always be sincere whether you mean it or not.")

Hillary doesn't project that sort of straight-forward sincerity. She comes across as calculating. That's why Jon Stewart's silly video showing her delayed laugh hurt her.

Chuck Dupree: I think Clinton benefits more from people not understanding what her true policies are than she does from people thinking she's a devil incarnate.

Hear, hear! I never thought she had horns or a tail (in fact such features might make her more interesting), but she's a DINO if ever there was one.

Truman said that given a choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican every time. Of course voters may have been more discerning back then, so maybe Hillary will pull it off. Oh well.

ex-liberal: How does one come across as not the devil?

Pretty simple really. Don't have horns or a tail (or hide them if you do have them), don't breath fire, and try to cover up that sulfur smell.

Yeah, FAUXlib, truly a shame that recruiting sergeant back in the 60s in California, didn't have more charisma and charm for you. So much could have been different. Mess halls and latrines could have been cleaner.

Zoomie: This worked for her in 2000. The mostly Republican upstate region of NY had very negative views of her when she began her Senate run. She spent a lot of time running around upstate, and her numbers steadily grew as people discovered she's far more likeable than they realized.

Wonderful. People voted for her because she's "likable". No different from people who voted for the Shrub because he seems like a better bar companion than Gore or Kerry.

Of course Hillary has a few drawbacks, like being an unrepentant Iraq War supporter and a charter member of Outsourcers-R-Us, but hey, what do those matter if she's "likable".

Since then, even in upstate NY

Especially upstate. Chuck's got the downstate turf. Some people even say part of her appeal is that her accent isn't too different from an upstate accent. That's so ridiculous it's probably true.

viewed as effective and hardworking for New Yorkers statewide

She picks up a little pork, like any half baked Senator. Chuck is much better at it, even though he doesn't have much more seniority or the Clinton name.

(remember, she won reelection quite easily)

In a Soviet style election - no opposition candidate.

I think the New York example is much more instructive than many people believe. Upstate really isn't particularly liberal, and in addition to her existing negatives, Clinton had her carpetbagger image to overcome. And overcome it she did. True, Giuliani would have given her more trouble than Lazio did, but every election has its peculiarities. And the "Soviet-style election" last year didn't have to be--the major Republicans sat out because HRC was by then a truly popular and effective incumbent. Anyway, while she wouldn't be a lock to win the presidency, I think she would.

The old Yale communications studies (Hovland & Sherif) are a strong argument against the idea that Hillary Clinton will have the hypothesized effect.

One result:
Two situations...

Situation 1, the speaker says something reasonable, followed up by something reasonable.

Situation 2, he speaker says something unreasonable, followed up by something reasonable.

There was a context effect from the first statement. In situation 1 the follow up statement was viewed as more reasonable than in the second.

The irrational Hillary hatred has become a parody of itself. It's old shtick.

John: I think the New York example is much more instructive than many people believe ... overcome it she did ... while she wouldn't be a lock to win the presidency, I think she would.

So, ignoring what she'd actually do as president, she could win the election. A kinder, gentler version of the Rovian "governance be damned, just get elected" approach. And a continuation of the DLC's astounding successful DINO policy. It worked for Bill, but that's about it. Stop fighting the last war.

Since then the only reason that some D's have won is that not that they offer substantively different policies, but because voters hope that they aren't quite as incompetent and corrupt as the R's. That's a great strategy: "vote for us, we're not quite as bad as the other guys". What happens when the other guys clean up their act a bit? The D's will have nothing to offer. Harry is rolling over in his grave.

Sorry, but I'm going to need more than handwaving to demonstrate how someone with 49% negs can win in the general.

Sans corne ni queue

ou

Sans queue ni tete.

Hmmm

What a wonderful group of people this Clinton clan gathers around themselves. g.w. orwell at 8:47 AM

I too think she is likely to win but I fully agree she's a DINO. Look at who's supporting her. A fundraiser by Rupert Murdoch - ugh! She is owned by the Israel lobby and that means no relief in the ME. Al Gore, please, please change your mind and save us from ourselves.

RWH:

The Isrealis own our politicians, Rethugs and Democrats alike.

Look, if you're going to say that all of our representatives are controlled by Jews - oops, I mean "Isrealis" (what are those, people who claim that they Is Real?) - at least spell it correctly.

Those of us with long memories remember that Reagan benefited from this phenomenon in 1980.

Liberals had spent years painting him as a radical and an idiot, so when he showed up at the debate with John Anderson (remember him?) and didn't drool all over his suit, swing voters realized he wasn't the total clown he'd been portrayed as, and gave him the benefit of the doubt from then on.

low-tech cyclist: Liberals had spent years painting him as a radical and an idiot

And they were right. Unfortunately elections are won or lost on the basis of image more than substantive issues.