Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 16, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

NEGATIVES....Southern California apostate Ezra Klein snags the front (op-ed) page of Southern California's newspaper of record today with a very nice piece about whether Hillary Clinton is really a uniquely polarizing candidate. It's true, he says, that her negatives are currently higher than either Edwards' or Obama's:

Still, it's a bit misleading to say "she" is more polarizing. Polarization isn't a character trait; it's the outcome of a process. And that process is American politics....As pollster Scott Rasmussen tells me, all the other candidates are going to see their negatives go up during the course of the campaign — and if one of them ultimately wins the race, their negatives will go up even further. "The next president will get to where she is no matter who we elect," he said. It's not that the others are necessarily less polarizing than Clinton. It's that they're not as polarizing yet.

....The polarizing effects of the process are the larger truth that voters have to grapple with. How will Obama look after nine months of sinister insinuations about his heritage, religious loyalties and racial background? How will John Edwards look after the airwaves are blanketed with sneering ads focusing on his mansion and his record as a trial lawyer and his pricey haircuts? How will Mitt Romney come off after mocking videos of his bald shifts in position play during every commercial break?

Yep, that's the question. And it's a real question, not a rhetorical one. How will Obama look after nine months on the receiving end of the right-wing slime machine? A big part of his appeal to Democrats depends on whether you think he'll come out of the other end of the campaign with the same high negatives as Hillary or whether he'll manage to stay five or ten points below her. My guess: if Obama gets the nomination, his negatives will never quite reach Hillary's level, but by November they'll only be three or four points lower. Personally, I doubt that that will make a difference. Either one of them has what it takes to win.

Kevin Drum 1:33 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Negatives have no bearing for me when deciding for whom to vote. If you tell me that negatives are high for Democratic candidates among Democrats, then its unlikely that they'll get the nomination anyway. What I do want is someone who can fight back quickly and effectively against the inevitable slander.

Posted by: Ares on December 16, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

True, whoever runs will get well and truly slimed. But Hillary's negatives seem more intense than those (current or potential) of the other Democratic candidates. Her enemies don't just dislike her; they view her as the Antichrist and will crawl through hell itself on election day just to vote against her. Would Obama or Edwards ever generate such spittle-flecked animosity?

Posted by: Snarkworth on December 16, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

The thing people seem to forget at times about Bill Clinton is the whole smear campaign against him started long before he met Monica or anything like that. The Republicans hated Bill from the moment he reached an office they had come to assume was their natural right. I would imagine most of the people who currently hate Hillary will hate whomever the Democrats nominate, so I don't think people should get too worked up about her negatives (and when I say this, bear in mind I am not a Hillary supporter).

Posted by: Guscat on December 16, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Nine months is different than 16 years.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on December 16, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

And Edwards has more of what it takes to win than either of them.
Which is why his candidacy won't be allowed.

On the other hand, I don't give a flying fuck who is the best candidate to have beer with.
The whole beer-instead-of-competence thing better be over now or America is royally skee-rude.

Posted by: Kenji on December 16, 2007 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

This makes a lot of sense-- but I think going negative on Obama would be much more perilous for Republicans than going negative on Clinton. There's a real possibility that Republicans would cross the don't-go-there line with Obama... and doing so would have dire consequences for the future of the party.

Posted by: MattF on December 16, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

MattF, I think you're right about that. The GOP smearmongers will have to be on tippy-toes going after Obama. Sexism, on the other hand, is easier for them to get away with. If Hillary runs, get ready for lots of "woman driver" jokes and "Hillary loves to shop, just like my little wife, haw haw" jokes.

Oh, and PMS. Haw haw.

Posted by: Snarkworth on December 16, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

If you believe Obama's negatives will rise close to Hillary's, then you don't really have a feel for the Clinton-hatred out there. For all of us Bush-haters it shouldn't be that difficult to visualize just how strongly the Repugs feel toward her.

Posted by: GrinningGrouse on December 16, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

**

Posted by: mhr on December 16, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Do people seriously doubt the efficacy of a smear machine that made the war hero John Kerry into a traitorous coward who faked his injuries and now has approval numbers about the same as Hillary. Talk about hope...on steroids. I can understand people wanting to ignore reality because they want to hope for something. But, come on.

Barack Obama does not have the insulation Kerry had and we expect him to fare better? The dangerous part about Obama is that despite his relatively low disapproval numbers, he performs worse than Hillary in head-to-head matchups against the GOP, which is eerily similar to where Kerry was in '04. I think Obama can win because the GOP field is really, really, really weak. But I think you have to have a whole lot of hope to think he'll come out of a GE campaign better than Hillary.

I never thought of Kevin as one to rely so heavily on hope.

Posted by: gqmartinez on December 16, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, yet another good post (and thoughtful comments) on a critical issue. I have long agreed with you that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards (and most of the second tier) are very talented Democratic politicians, and they would all make competent Presidents with progressive enough policies. And I've tended to side with you (and Charlie Cook of the National Journal) that Hill's negatives really aren't that much of a problem.

However, I am having an increasingly difficult time pretending that the strong negative feelings about Hillary on the Democratic side are not a real problem for her. I read your blog, TPM, Carpetbagger, and a number of other very thoughtful progressive blogs, and am stunned by the number of comments expressing outright disdain for Hillary, disdain that does not appear to be coming from rw trolls. Maybe this small cross section of the engaged electorate doesn't matter. But maybe it's actually critically important in building an effective general election campaign for the eventual nominee.

Regardless, it is very distressing to see our party tearing itself apart in the primary. Not good.

Posted by: wvng on December 16, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree with Kevin. Of course, Obama's negatives would go up in the heat of a campaign. But he has something that Clinton has not at all, and Edwards much less: grace, and a palpable sense of comfort in his own skin. Smear campaigns stick much less well on the rare person like that.

Posted by: Matt on December 16, 2007 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

First, Snarkworth: PMS is not likely to be much of an attack on a postmenopausal Hillary.

Second, Ezra at appears to be thinking that the this tactic of driving up negatives occurs in a vacuum.

There are powerful countervailing forces to slime machines, among them the existing political climate, an effective counterattack, and the candidate himself (or herself) out there connecting with (or alienating) the voter.

Driving up negatives for Dem candidates that most Americans can plainly see are stronger and more gifted is not much of plan for a GOP with no message.

Posted by: paxr55 on December 16, 2007 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

The Republican slime machine is a foregone conclusion, so pick the candidate most able to drive Republican negatives the highest.

Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 on December 16, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

What Kevin Drum isn't aware of is that there aren't just three actors involved: the Dems, the GOP (the "slime machine", per Drum), and the MSM.

All it takes is a few people who are familiar with topics to go to campaign appearances and - completely independently from the Dem/GOP/MSM axis - ask questions that will reveal that the candidates have no real knowledge about the issues they discuss.

We've got almost a year before the election, and that's plenty of time for someone to go to one of Obama's appearances and show that he has no clue. (And, for Hill, see this: youtube.com/watch?v=Q_l4Lawj14A). The second one has almost 15,000 views, so eventually someone's going to ask her about that.

Posted by: The annoying LonewackoDotCom on December 16, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Ezra's observation misses the mark. He seems to equate "polarizing" with having high negatives. Polarizing is having large numbers of people simultaneously and intractably loathing you on one hand and admiring you on the other. Swift boating may have dragged Kerry down and his negatives up, but he was never widely hated or loved. People were for him or against him, but the feelings toward him pale in comparison to the feelings people have toward Hillary. Looking at polarization this way, Hillary really does stand apart from the rest. (I want to note that I am not arguing that Hillary's high polarization level is deserved--just that it is singular.)

Posted by: q on December 16, 2007 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

If you believe Obama's negatives will rise close to Hillary's, then you don't really have a feel for the Clinton-hatred out there. For all of us Bush-haters it shouldn't be that difficult to visualize just how strongly the Repugs feel toward her.
Posted by: GrinningGrouse on December 16, 2007 at 2:20 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ya got that right. And it isn't just Republicans. Clinton - & Bush - Derangement Syndromes have absolutely nothing to do with Dubya or Hillary's actions, or even much to do with campaign mudslinging. It is an attitude among individual people regardless of ideology that s/he can do absolutely nothing right, that s/he are absolutely evil with no redeeming qualities. The only other candidate that comes close to having this amount of public loathing is Rudy, IMO.

Hillary's negatives stem from an outright personal hatred, justified or not, by many voters. Obama & Edwards, while equally subject to swift-boating by the right wing, will never have to face that degree of emotional reaction from everyday folks. While Obama must overcome racism in general & Edwards a strong distrust against lawyers in general, in their case it is seldom personal emnity.

Posted by: bob in fla on December 16, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

In either case, the Republicans will be able to say that their negatives are understated by secret reluctance to vote for a woman or a black. We need to be working now to make sure the election is not stolen electronically.

Posted by: Lindata on December 16, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

"Hillary's negatives stem from an outright personal hatred, justified or not, by many voters."

I hear this, but I don't understand it. Before she was a Senator, and only the wife of a Prez, who had ever heard her speak about anything? Who has heard her give a political speech while she was running for Senator?

I don't think anybody remembers her Healthcare Initiative back in, what, 1993 either. I don't remember her giving a speech regarding it.

I'd guess 95% of the country had not heard her speak before this campaign. They might have a unconscious impression from body language, sound of voice, etc., and that's about it.

Hatred of her must be based completely on the fact that she's a woman, and Limbaugh-type characterizations of her as some castrating b*tch. Right? Completely, artificially generated by mocking of her by right-wing radio blowhards, which trickles down into the popular consciousness.

What part of her personality are people privy to?

I'm a pretty good judge of these things, and I don't see "castrating b*tch" when I hear/see her speak. I see a pretty smart, yuppie-mom-type, who tones down her WASPyness with subtle linguistic tricks, for the populist appeal.

I think it's just that she's
1) smarter than average
2) slightly confident (as pols must be)
3) and, a woman

The first two will piss off a certain segment of the population, but it's the addition of the third that makes the effect huge, IMO. And not just sports-talk men either, but bitchy woman apparently hate her too.

I dislike her because the neo-cons ("liberal" hawks) have allied themselves with her - and she with them, as she knew she's need their support in the media and with financing. Rahm Emmanuel, Mark Penn, the NYT/TNR types, I've seen AEI guys on CSPAN talking positively about her! They've picked her because she is their best bet to continue the wars against Muslims. And they know the Repubs are a bad bet this election.

Posted by: luci on December 16, 2007 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

I'm an Edwards supporter, but I actually see him as being more easily damaged by mudslinging. Why? I think that Hillary and Obama would get more sympathy votes if they were victims of a heavily negative campaign.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on December 16, 2007 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

How will Mitt Romney come off after mocking videos of his bald shifts in position play during every commercial break?

Except this won't happen. If Romney is the GOP candidate, the Dems won't run these videos. They simply don't operate that way.

More importantly, whatever commercials the Dems run won't really matter, will they? David Broder and Chris Matthews and Kit Seeleye and all the rest won't make those flip-flops part of The Narrative.

"Character flaws" are for Democrats.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on December 16, 2007 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

The "have a beer with" crap was just more propaganda that the MSM "catapulted.

NO ONE WANTS TO HAVE A BEER WITH AN OBNOXIOUS ALCOHOLIC/COCAINE ADDICT

It was a lie then and it is a lie now - just another distraction and bold-faced-lie that was used to justify the "highly energized base" meme that provided the rational for stolen elections.

Posted by: little bear on December 16, 2007 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

luci @ 4:03 PM: That was my point; Hillary Derangement Syndrome is not rational. There doesn't have to be a reason for it, at least one that those who hate her will examine rationally. While many will try to express justification for it, it is a deeply emotional, below the level of consciousness kind of thing which cannot be overcome by reason. Therein lies the problem. For most of these people, they will vote for anybody-but, no matter how despicable the opposition is.

Posted by: bob in fla on December 16, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: I'm sure it seems that way in southern California. Please, please get out of that area and visit the midwest or southwest or southeast, and talk to ordinary people about Hilary Clinton. The hatred is astounding. The machine has had years to work on it, and has evidently done a very good job.. it's near-jihad levels in many parts of the country. Don't nominate her, I beg of you.

Posted by: Shag on December 16, 2007 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Shag's right, there is outright disdain for Sen. Clinton here, and it goes way back to the Arkansas days. She drives the dittoheads insane. On the other hand, my wife, a liberal, feminist, professional, will not vote for her (she's and Edwards fan) primarily because she doesn't like her career arc hitched to her husband.

Posted by: RollaMO on December 16, 2007 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

No one has yet to answer some of the concerns I raised: Kerry was probably doing better on "negatives" than Obama was at this point in time and Kerry was a freakin war hero; Obama does worse in head-to-head matchups than Hillary despite her high negatives. What if Obama were to have his negatives at 40%, where would he be in the polls? Also, no one considers what Hillary has done in NY state regarding her negatives.

But who needs facts when you have hope, eh? Not that I think Obama is electable or that "electability" should be the primary factor when deciding whom to vote for. But having these rose colored glasses on won't help our cause.

Posted by: gqmartinez on December 16, 2007 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

To luci: she's more than smarter than average, she's smarter than Bill - who is astonishing. No one who has been around her has anything less than admiration for her vast understanding of policy issues. Many of us are frustrated by her constant triangulation, but the reThugs in the Senate who had been conditioned to hate her (due to all they had been conditioned to expect) don't.

New York has clearly moved past irrational HillHate. From Wikipedia: "Clinton has enjoyed high approval ratings for her job as senator within New York, reaching an all-time high of 72 to 74 percent approving (including half of Republicans) over 23 to 24 percent disapproving in December 2006, before her presidential campaign became active;[228][229] by August 2007, after a half year of campaigning, it was still 64 percent over 34 percent."

Any Dem is going to be endlessly villified by the right. That's just what they do, it's the only game they know. It's worse for Hillary because of the long history of RW hatred of Bill that long ago reflected onto her, but Bill has 60+ percentage approval ratings in this country, and is admired around the world.

I'll be damned if the RW machine is going to pick my Democratic candidate. Hillary is tough as nails, and that's what it is going to take in the general election.

Posted by: wvng on December 16, 2007 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

I am not too worried about Hillary’s negatives. She is someone who has been in the public eye for over 15 years and has had to take stands that were going to upset someone. Everyone predicted that she would never be elected a senator from New York. Not only was she elected, but she was re-elected.

Many predicted that she would be a failure in the senate, but that turned out to be wrong, too. She worked well with senators on both sides of the aisle, much to the surprise of many Republican senators, who like her.

Obama is trying to run a vanilla campaign without specifics. He talks in positive generalities, much like Bush did in 2000. And, how did Bush’s promises to end the divisions in Washington and work with both parties turn out? I much prefer a candidate who is open and honest about what they believe.

Strong and effective leaders make enemies—sometimes life-long ones. I once worked at a company, where one of the partners disliked FDR so intensely that he required the receptionist to discard all Roosevelt dimes from the petty cash twenty years after the president was dead.

Posted by: emmarose on December 16, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

bob in fla has a good point. The anti-Hillary emotional response has been implanted and continuously cultivated deep in the minds of voters for something like 15 years already. Part of it may have been that Bill was too good a politician so in frustration much of the smearing was retargeted at her. And as the first first-spoose in a long time with a background to run for the office herself HC made a logical target for the machine.

In addition to the racial dangers of Obama smear, the real attacks on him can only been made in the months before the election, when more voters expect unwarranted politically motivated attacks. With their emotional immune systems activated to expect mud-throwing the attacks are not as likely to be successful.

When we compare to the Kerry swiftboating we have to remember that Kerrys anti-war activities during the 70's were across the line to many moderate (independents) voters. That made for fertile ground for the swiftboating to stick. Add to that his upper class stiffness (common people couldn't emotionally connect with him), and he was an easy candidate to create negatives for.

Posted by: bigTom on December 16, 2007 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK
MattF, ...GOP smearmongers will have to be on tippy-toes going after Obama....Snarkworth 7 at 2:15 PM
You two are joking, right? Because if you're not, you are naive as hell.
...will reveal that the candidates have no real knowledge about the issues they discuss....The annoying LonewackoDotComat 3:06 PM
However, none are as clueless as your Dear Leader and that fact has never restrained your adulation.
...1) smarter than average...3) and, a woman .... luci at 4:03 PM
Already, Chris Matthews is giving spittle-flecked rants about pols who think they are smarter than others, presumably him. Of course, he is a misogynist to boot, so Rudy is his b'hoy.

Despite all the negatives, she doesn't do badly against Republicans

...In hypothetical matchups ... McCain does best of the Republicans against Clinton and trails her by just one point...Clinton tops Giuliani by a slim 4 points ...Overall, Clinton’s lead increases to 9 percent when pitted against Thompson and 13 points against Romney...
(Huckabee, Paul, Tancredo, Keyes not mentioned)

Posted by: Mike on December 16, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the responses bob and wvng. I agree with you guys, the source of HillaryHate can't be based on much. To me, she's a real solid candidate, if too much of a hawk for my tastes (though I don't know how much of that is positioning). I lean towards Edwards.

I actually think Obama would lose a general election to a non-crazy Republican, and is the only leading Dem who would lose. I think when people look at him, they see young, smart, maybe a little smug. A lawyer, or a civil rights leader, or a CEO, but not President. Not yet. Mostly from the combination of being young(looking) and (half)black. People in the Midwest, South, white men, some white women, won't pull the lever for him.

Posted by: luci on December 16, 2007 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Obama makes a good Veep for all those reasons. Eight years from now, he is the obvious choice for President.

Posted by: craigie on December 16, 2007 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

The real question will be whether Democrats and progressives will continue to give the Village media a free pass on converting rumor into fact, framing the election in accordance with the GOP script, and employing scaremongering to tar the democratic candidate.

All of the aforementioned are currently in play and, like the movie "Groundhog Day", our progressive leaders are giving the Villagers a free pass. Example number one: Kevin's post.

Posted by: dick tuck on December 16, 2007 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

There will be one difference: a certain percentage of Obama's "supporters" will be lying to pollsters. There are a few racial bigots in the U.S., and they probably outnumber the gender bigots. Thank goodness it appears that the U.S. will finally get past at least one form of bigotry next year. You're right: either can win. I'd say it stronger: one of them will win.

Posted by: Michael on December 16, 2007 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "How will Obama look after nine months on the receiving end of the right-wing slime machine?"

Like snow in a street gutter at the end of March, awaiting its inevitable meltdown into the nearest storm drain. I wish I had more confidence in the guy, but I just don't.

I can't help but think the corporate-owned and GOPZ-friendly media is setting up Democratic voters for a big pratfall. Should Sen. Obama somehow win the nomination by late March, we can pretty much write off the states of the old Confederacy. I wish that weren't true, but the RNC's "I met Harold at the Playboy party!" ad from last year is but a taste of the thinly-veiled (and not-so-thinly-veiled) racial invective heading down our way.

Further, the same media personalities -- Chris Matthews, et al. -- who are currently talking up the Obama campaign will be raking its bones over the coals by early summer, regardless of issue or topic, and will do their utmost to ensure that Sen. Obama will exit the Democratic convention at least 10 points down in the polls, and headed upstream without a paddle.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on December 16, 2007 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

I have been arguing for months that "Hillary has high negatives" argument is bs. She has high negatives because she has been the target of the Right Wing Noise Machine for 15 years.

Any Democrat who becomes the nominee will end up with high negatives by election day. Both Gore and Kerry had negatives in the high 40s.

Obama Cultists think their Messiah is immune to this. Already though polls show 40% say they won't vote for him. That's after a year of glowing press coverage he has received. Imagine what his numbers will be after he gets the Gore treatment from the media.

Posted by: Nan on December 16, 2007 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

"Except this won't happen. If Romney is the GOP candidate, the Dems won't run these videos. They simply don't operate that way."

Democrats can't. They don't have their own Noise Machine.

Democrats don't have their own FOX/WSJ/NY Post/800 radio stations etc etc.


MSM is reflexively hostile to Dems. They have been kinder and gentler with Obama only because they hate the Clintons. If Obama were to become the Dem nominee Broders/Russerts/Dowds would rip him to shreds. Obama has never had to deal with that kind of an assault. He would not only lose but lose big.

Posted by: Nan on December 16, 2007 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

Greg Sargent over at Horse's Mouth has a superb piece on the msm problem "about their own addiction to imposing narratives of their own collective choosing on their coverage of politics," drawing heavily on a recent Media Matters post.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/political_repor.php

The simple reality is that the political msm treats this as a game. It's fun for them, and heady to be king makers and breakers. I vividly remember Margaret Carlson being asked about Bush/Gore campaign saying (with a big grin on her face) that, yes, they could have done real reporting on Bush's policy inconsistencies, but it was fun going after Gore because it was so easy.

Edwards should be, and is, a very strong candidate with a tremendous populist message- but the msm decided they don't like him. Marc Armbinder at the Atlantic noted a few months ago that the media had decided to go after Edwards.

Sargent ends as follows:
"We will do this, we will do that. We shouldn't do it, but we will do it, anyway. . . . Does anything like this happen in other professions? Imagine if lawyers routinely said, "we really shouldn't counsel our clients to lie on the witness stand," and continued to do so anyway.Or imagine if doctors said, "you know, we constantly amputate people's legs when they don't need it," and continued to do so anyway.


Such behavior would be plainly absurd in other lines of work. Yet "we" in the political media do this all the time, and have done so for years and years and years."

Posted by: wvng on December 16, 2007 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has faced none of the media bias that Hillary and Edwards have put up with and I doubt he would be able to remain standing the way they have. The media bias is apparent and documented by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Obama has received the lion's share of coverage and almost all of it positive. When Obama performed abysmally in a debate being laughed at and then visibly crumbling over his mistake of not voting on Kyl-Lieberman but rebuking Hillary, the msm ignored this. But Hillary makes one mistake and the msm jumped all over her. Hillary's campaign mentions that Obama's drug use could be problematic in a general (true) and the msm villifies her. Yet Obama's camp has been worse. The references to Hillary as D-Punjab, the Hsu affair, the mysterious push polls that the msm never bothered to investigate. He has faced no tough questions.

When the msm and the Republicans do go after Obama it will be a disaster for Democrats. Reading his book, which is a litany of resentments with attendant feelings of disdain for so many people, you can't help but get the impression there is a minefield of potential Republican attacks waiting and there is a good reason the Hannitys and Libaughs and Coulters have focused their venom on Edwards and Hillary.

Posted by: Chrissy on December 16, 2007 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Chrissy, what are you smoking? I want some. I want to be able to see the future.

Posted by: frank C on December 16, 2007 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

frank C, you'd be better off asking Obama that question.

Posted by: Chrissy on December 16, 2007 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin's really been quite the apologist for Clinton lately.

Posted by: Quinn on December 16, 2007 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

This ignores the concept of 'teflon candidates' which we've seen in the Republican party, but never in the Democratic party. I suspect Obama is our first teflon candidate, and we really ought to seize that advantage.

Posted by: KathyF on December 17, 2007 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for periodically reminding me that all the Democratic candidates are fine, electable candidates. I get discouraged sometimes reading all the media about them and forget that my role, as a voter in a state with a May primary, is to wait and see which wonderful candidate the rest of the country hands me to vote for.

Posted by: Sherry Chandler on December 17, 2007 at 6:21 AM | PERMALINK

"Sexism is easier to get away with in America than racism"

Only with men. And more than half of all voters are women. Every time a Republican makes some knee-jerk sexist innuendo about Hilary, another independent, or perhaps Republican, woman will decide, quietly, to vote for her.

Posted by: Doctor Jay on December 17, 2007 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

frank C: Chrissy, what are you smoking?

Chrissy: frank C, you'd be better off asking Obama that question.

This made me laugh out loud. Not because it was remotely clever; because it was so like something a smug Republican pundit would say, looking around hopefully: "See, I made a funny!"

Posted by: shortstop on December 17, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Smug fool.

Posted by: Chrissy on December 17, 2007 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

Have you thought of adding some videos to your blog posts to keep the readers more entertained? I recently read through the post and it was good…tahnk you for the share

Posted by: shoes on May 17, 2010 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly