New Gallup poll puts HRC's unfavorable rating at 52%

[BeyondGeography]

Obama also gaining ground, but the unfavorable rating ties into 14 years worth of similar data so it's the main takeaway from this poll, IMO.

<From NBC's Mark Murray
A new national Gallup poll finds that Barack Obama is gaining ground on Hillary Clinton. In the Democratic horserace, Clinton leads Obama, 31%-26% -- followed by Edwards at 16% and Gore at 15%; no other Democrat gets more than 3%. A Gallup poll earlier this month had Clinton up on Obama by 19 points (38%-19%).

Perhaps more troublesome for Clinton is that 52% have an unfavorable opinion of her in the poll, versus 45% who have a favorable view. By comparison, Obama has a 52%-27% fav/unfav rating.

In the GOP field, Giuliani is at 35%, McCain at 22%, Fred Thompson at 10%, and Romney at 9%. Moreover, the poll finds that just 36% approve of Bush's job; only 25% approve of Alberto Gonzales' job; and just 26% believe the troop surge in Iraq is making the situation there better.>

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/17/154707.aspx

[youngdem]

1. seems low.

:shrug:

[Kolesar]

2. All the better--republican stomachs will churn when she takes the presidency in November....eom

[Colobo]

5. Nah; the nation will be united under Obama's presidency, so don't worry.

[Kolesar]

6. Oh, but to hear the head of the redneck in the next cubicle's head explode

It would be the sweetest of sounds.

[Colobo]

8. Hillary and Obama would make that happen, and it would be beautiful indeed.

[Kolesar]

11. You have to admit that there was this psychotic obsession some had with the Clintons

Richard Mellon Scaife and all that.

Now, Barak Obama. I think what would be great about having him as president would be the signal of electing an African American. A huge torment in the Arab and Moslem world is the anguish of the post-colonial and petro-colonial exploitation of their countries. Just think of the message of electing someone who is not white. Barak would be somebody that they could identify with. An undeniable bridge

[Pirate Smile]

17. Have you seen some of the posts on Andrew Sullivan's blog about unlikely Obama supporters?

"Serious Change" Wanted
16 Apr 2007 09:20 am

A reader writes:

My partner and I were at her parents' house this weekend in eastern NC. They are people who grew up in a segregated South and would not be upset if life, in some instances, had remained that way.

So much to our surprise this weekend, they both declared they were voting for Obama! I literaly almost fell out of the recliner! I was like "What did you just say?" They laughed and said, "Yeah, we are voting for him because we agree with his views and we are sick of Bush and his stubborness and arrogance towards the war." Being the smart ass that I am, I told them if they had seen Obama on TV and knew that he was black. They just smiled and said, "Yes, so what? We need serious change in this country."

Whoever captures that mood best will win the presidency. And, no, I don't think the email was planted by an Obama staffer.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/serious_change_.html

Former Segregationists for Obama
16 Apr 2007 06:50 pm

It's a trend:

You can definitely be sure from my e-mail address I'm not an Obama staffer, but I have a similar story to that of your earlier e-mailer. My dad grew up in Macon, Georgia in an all-white school he describes consistently as having gone to hell thanks to integration. He has never been personally racist to anyone of any background in his life, but he really thinks the world went to hell starting about 1960 and that civil rights went too far too fast. His dislike for the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world couldn't be fiercer. The N-word is pretty much the standard noun many of his family members use to describe black people. His only vote for a Democrat in his lifetime was for Carter, out of Georgia patriotism.

I had the fun experience of watching Obama's electrifying 2004 convention speech with him. My dad, who hadn't heard of him, just said "He's good." As in, "ok, I liked this guy, but he's a Democrat, so he must be a huckster. But he's a talented one."

Then, late last year, his updated view on Obama: "I think I could vote for him." I could only turn around and smirk, once I'd picked my jaw up from the floor.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/former_segregat.html

[saracat]

19. Somehow I think an Edwards Obama ticket will win!

[elizm]

22. Flip that to....

...Obama/Edwards....and we have a sure win!

[saracat]

25. Don't think that would happen. Edwards wouldn't be second fiddle.

[Alexander]

34. He was last time.

[saracat]

35. Thats why he wouldn't be again.And certainly not to a Sen. with less experience than himself! JMHO>

[Alexander]

56. Obama and Edwards have about the same amount of experience.

The only difference is, instead of doing the last 2 years of his job, Edwards was busy missing votes and running for president. Now Obama's doing the same after the first 2 years of his job.

I say "about the same" because Obama was a State Senator for a few years, but I don't consider that equal to US Senate experience.

[saracat]

65. I still don't think they are comparable. Obama has just been elected.Whatever.

[Alexander]

67. Edwards never had elective experience before 1998. Obama did.

And even then, Edwards has only run in three elections, two of which he lost.

Obama won his state Senate seat several times before running for US Senator.

I could probably make an even more convincing case for Obama having more experience, but since I don't really care (I view both men as not having enough right now), I'll stand by my "equal" statement.

[caledesi]

24. Any order - it's a winning ticket! NT

[ddeclue]

74. Oh PULEAZE...it will never happen...Hillary will lose n/t

[Kolesar]

75. I was speaking tongue in cheek, Mr. Agitated

I don't know who you are advocating for and in fact I don't even care. I don't think any of the candidates have distinguished themselves with credible positions yet. Some of them have been inexcusably lame. So, I am not ready to abandon any of the primary candidates.

[Stuckinthebush]

3. That's the killer number

52% just don't like her and thereis little she can do to change that opinion.

If Clinton gets the nomination then we are going to have a very very hard time getting her elected.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. HRC can't win against Rudy. How much evidence will we ignore?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

40. HRC can't win. PERIOD.

it is a truth, no matter how unpleasant to her fans here. By now, the fact that the majority here don't trust, like, or want her should be sending those folks a message. That except for those on her payroll scouring all site for anti-HRC comments and attacking those who post their feelings and beliefs, her fans should see that the more people who think about her, the more they don't want her.

[Colobo]

4. ¡Excelente!

Obama gaining ground even on Gallup's poll, which has given Hillary very large leads in the past, and Rasmussen has him 2 points from her...

I wonder if the Hillarites around here are going to like these polls... :)

[SaveElmer]

61. She certainly has work to do...but I gotta ask...

Why would you be happy at the negative ratings of a fellow Democrat?

[rinsd]

7. I want to see the poll. The results are very strange compared to the last one

We have Hillary plunging in what amounts roughly 10 days between polling times (assuming this was taken in the 3 days prior to today).

Now that could be a delayed residual of Obama doing very well in fundraising.

But how does that explain the rise of McCain in the polls when he's been bashed every since the numbers came out?

[ElizabethDC]

9. Well, I'm suspicious of polls in general

especially sense it's so far away from election day. But I've noticed that many similar polls (asking the same questions, taken during the same time period, etc.) have very different results, so I try not to get too excited or too upset over what I see.

[rinsd]

15. I'm just curious as to why the jump occured on one side of the aisle

Now I guess you could make the supposition that the media has been talking alot more about the Democratic candidates vs. the Gopers.

[Heywood J]

62. Seconded.

I said this the last time, that we're just under a year even from primaries. Talk about jumping the gun...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. No surprise there--but she will sweep that remaining 48% percent to win 49 states!

Nominating HRC is a faith-based initiative...

[elizm]

12. This says it all...

...Perhaps more troublesome for Clinton is that 52% have an unfavorable opinion of her in the poll, versus 45% who have a favorable view...

Hillary has peaked...and even John McCain beats her at her 'peak'. If she is the nominee...we LOSE!

[jaysunb]

14. Correct

that's been the plan all along :evilfrown:

[The Count]

13. She gets it from left and right. Others get a free ride. MSM fixing our primaries again

And that from someone NOT planning to vote for her. Just noting how coverage affects perception.

[earthlover]

16. Hillary was coronated the front runner a long time ago by the press

[The Count]

46. True - but mostly to serve as punching ball

Obama gets his share of negative articles - and even the GOP-ers occasionally get some facts.
There's one candidate that's sailing free - again. I'd love to know who paid that ticket.

[IndianaGreen]

51. She deservedly gets it from the Left

The Right will always be up to their old tricks no matter who we nominate, so we might as well nominate someone that will bring the country together, not tear it asunder as Hillary will.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. HRC vs. Obama, favs/unfavs

HRC -7
Obama +25

[elizm]

21. Senator Obama...

.... has the young voters, as well as some who have NEVER voted, leaning towards him. I know this to be true...even in the south. Barack Obama CAN...and needs to be...our next President. Our country needs him.

[caledesi]

26. elizm -all the way ba-a-a-by! nt

[DFW]

23. My dad was a New York Yankee fan

But since we lived in the South, he was a minority of one.

EVERYbody hated the Yankees. I never really knew why, but they did.
ANY time there was the slightest negative comment anywhere about
Mickey Mantle or one of the others on the team (at the time) that's
all I'd hear. No logical reasons why, people just loved to hate them.

All this anti-Hillary stuff reminds me of exactly the same tone of
argument. All these reasons desperately dredged up for one purpose
only: feel-good stuff for the I Hate Hillary crowd. I'm not even a
Hillary supporter and I'm still tired of it. So little of why Edwards
is better or Obama is better, and all this emotional crap that reminds
me of nothing so much as Republican anti-Bill Clinton propaganda of
the impeachment days. I would think that Edwards or Obama supporters
would want to spend more time building up their man rather than
getting their jollies bashing Hillary. What, your man doesn't merit
the time?

As an aside note, my dad was a friend of Mario Cuomo's, and from what
I remember him telling me, Cuomo was not the sort to engage in the
kind of I Hate Hillary stuff I have seen posted here. He was bigger
than that.

Why doesn't the anti-Hillary crowd just get together for one big
I Hate Hillary shout, and the give it a rest and go back to saying
why another of the Democrats is good rather than regurgitating why
Hillary is bad. We all know that some think so. Hitting us over the
head with it is sort of like listening to Pat Robertson tell us why
he knows what God wants every week. Booooooooring.

[paulk]

30. it does make a person wonder

why some of these Obama and Edwards supporters spend so much of their time trashing Hillary Clinton, and so little of their time putting forth reasons why their candidate is superior.

One possible explanation is that these posters are not Obama or Edwards supporters at all... they are, in fact, Republican plants, sent here to sow dissension among Democrats.

[rinsd]

32. That's not fair to legit Obama and Edwards supporters.

Its only a few who say they support Obama or Edwards who do the constant Hillary bashing. I also don't think they're plants but rather just pissed off people on the internet fixated on Hillary.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

41. which came first, the chicken or the egg?

what has happened is that there is a reflexive attacke by HRCers against those of us who have tried long and hard to find a reason to support her, and cannot in good faith do so. It is not hatred, it is a rational choice. I care not one bit for someone who leads from the rear, seeing how the winds blow before taking a stance. If a tough issue comes up, she ducks until her focus groups and polling data are back.

Name one issue, except flag burning (and she was wrong on that, too) that she led on in the senate.

without a famous, talented hubbie, she'd still be a hack lawyer in Arkansas.

I attended an ABA convention a year before Bill announced his candidacy. on the last day of my division's meetings, we were told that one of the top ten trial lawyers in the country would speak AND she was a woman! It was Hillary. Except, she had only one trial under her belt solo, and little other trial experience. It was a sham put up job. It was PR spin by her paid staff. It was bullshit and it was nothing more than a way to introduce bill to a bunch of real trial lawyers. She was a liar then, she was a liar about her billing records, she continues to lie whenever it can help her. My personal dealings with her at the convention (there were more than a few - I chaired a big section) left a very bad taste in my mouth. She was arrogant, offensive and extremely cold and calculating.

No, the defensiveness, the attacks by Hillarians, and their refusal to face facts is more than half the problem. In fact, I'd venture to say that it is more than 52% of the problem.

and no on EVER can get elected when more than half the people hate her or will never vote for her. To suggest otherwise is to be as delusional as Dick Cheney on Iraq.

[paulk]

42. oh, I don't think all the Hillary haters are plants,

some are just haters...

[SOS]

64. "Hillary haters"

The "haters" canard has interesting origins:

Bush-Haters of the World, Unite!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/169lwekl.asp

Loving the Bush Haters
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/169lwekl.asp

The Bush Haters
http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200312090858.asp

What Makes the Bush-Haters So Mad?
By Charles Krauthammer
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,487932,00.html

How the Bush Haters are Hurting America
By Bill O'Reilly
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212499,00.html

[paulk]

66. it's not a "canard"

ten minutes on DU should convince you of that.

and it's not necessarily just Hillary haters. Every Democrat seems to have an anti-fan club here, though some certainly come in for more shit than others...

[rinsd]

44. "she'd still be a hack lawyer in Arkansas."

LOL. You do realize Bill was the one from Arkansas.

And last I checked "hacks" don't graduate from Yale Law, become part of the inquiry staff for the Judicial committee during Watergate and teach at law school by the age of 28.

"
My personal dealings with her at the convention (there were more than a few - I chaired a big section) left a very bad taste in my mouth. She was arrogant, offensive and extremely cold and calculating. "

Considering you personality here on DU, she probably put you in your place and you still resent it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

45. can't discount that possibility. I know I can be rude, sarcastic and worse.

But, my reaction to her is not based on scaifian-rovian actions. It was based on personal experience. But apparently, those don't matter.

By the way, hacks DO graduate from Yale. And Harvard. And Princeton. And Northwestern. And UCLA. And other fine schools. The idea that simply by getting into such a school makes them special and perfect and immune from accurate criticism is so silly and unfounded that it demeans the rest of your post.

Golly, teaching law at 28? that means that I am as good as hillary! wow! Gee, thanks. (sarcasm)

[Alexander]

37. I don't think you'll find many here who "hate" Hillary Clinton.

That's often a straw man created by her supporters to make any criticism of her sound like it's coming from the Republicans.

To me, she's not exciting, she's pretty far to my right on a lot of issues (especially Iraq), she doesn't seem to be standing for much, I don't like political dynasties, and I don't think she can win the general election, based on many polls like this which show essentially the same result - very high disapproval numbers, and very high name recognition numbers.

When I voted during the 2004 primaries, Kerry already had the nomination in the bag. Yet I felt uneasy about voting for someone who voted "Yes" on the IWR. Since this was the primaries, I voted Dean.

Well, I worked my ass off for Kerry in the GE. Even though Hillary Clinton continues to support the war (with a nebulous promise to "end it" if elected), I will do the same for her if she wins the nomination, because she's a hell of a lot better than any of the fascists the Republicans will nominate.

"Hate" is a very strong word. Many of us oppose a Clinton nomination for the reasons I stated, while openly declaring in no uncertain terms we would support her candidacy and vote for her if she won the nomination, and we are labeled as "hating" Hillary Clinton.

:eyes:

Some people do really hate her, but I doubt any of those people would ever vote for her for anything, even in a general election matchup.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

43. I don't hate her, I just dislike her, her style her approach to leadership,

her stance on Iraq, her NAFTA positions, her lack of believability on Palestine, her refusal - actually the list is pretty damn long.

[The Count]

47. Beautiful post. From another non-supporter who is fed-up with much of this

I have my beef with Hillary - so she is not my candidate. But all this energy spent to denigrate her almost makes me - not support her - but at least defend her at times.

[BeyondGeography]

49. Let me get this straight

if you post a legitimate poll highlighting results for Hillary that go to the heart of her electability and/or her ability to govern if elected, you're a Hillary hater?

This isn't "anti-Hillary stuff," it's a poll where respondents are asked the same set of questions about declared candidates. If the results aren't great for HRC, does this make it an anti-Hillary poll?

Read up, there are legitmate concerns about her unfavorable ratings; it's a long-term saga and worthy of discussion, and the problem continues, as the OP demonstrates:

http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2006/08/hillarys-image-1993-2006.html

[draft_mario_cuomo]

50. HRC supporters want to supress anything that doesn't make HRC look perfect

It is like how the pro-war people want to stifle dissent and unfavorable facts by saying you are anti-US if you don't toe the line. DLC/HRC fans are doing the same by accusing dissenters of being anti-Dem.

It is obvious HRC cannot win. Does the DLC really care about winning, though? If the DLC wins the nomination they regain control of the party. Isn't that their chief goal? And what would be the substantial differences between a President Giuliani and a President Lieberman or President H. Clinton? Giuliani would be a DLC'er if he were a Democrat.

[DFW]

57. I don't think Hillary needs any defending

Nor do I think any other candidate needs it.

You either like their positions or you don't.

Also, I agree that the polls, if taken objectively, which
some of them are bound to be, will say what they will say,
and if Hillary comes up short, then so be it.

My beef is not with those who support other candidates and
post valid reasons for doing so. What turns me off are the
constant posts that seem obsessed with solely pointing out Hillary's
negatives as the main highlight of their political awareness.
It says to me that those obsessed with Hillary's negatives have
precious little to say about the candidate they DO support, and I
find that a little disconcerting.

I happen to think that Edwards, Gore, or Obama (and even Hillary,
for that matter) could run a terrific campaign with the right people
advising them, and can't for the life of me figure out why supporters
of Edwards and Obama (in particular) seem so terribly insecure about
their men that they spend more time tearing Hillary down than explaining
why their men are so good. I like both Edwards and Obama, and think
that anyone purporting to support them could find plenty positive to
say about them rather than take up most of their time saying what's
bad about Hillary. This is getting so obsessive on the part of some
that I am slowly beginning to think there is something to those posts
that accuse some of the most obsessive Hillary-bashers to be on this
board for purposes other than straight discussion.

And for what it's worth, quoting ANY polls as gospel eight months before
the first primaries is like saying "mission accomplished." It'll work as
feel-good medicine for those who will never believe anything other than what
they want to believe, but like the song says, "it ain't necessarily so."

Reality usually sets in, sooner or later (Bush, Cheney, et al. excluded).

[BeyondGeography]

58. HRC has many fine advocates on this board

and they talk issues with Obama and Edwards supporters, it gets heated sometimes, but I give them lots of credit for arguing with skill and never lapsing into the "you just hate Hillary" meme. If you read your posts, they are devoid of anything positive to say about Hillary; they're just a smear of posters who come onto this board and voice their opposition, for whatever reason, to Hillary. You're doing exactly the same thing you claim they do.

The OP cites objective polling data that is in line with 14 years of polling on this particular candidate, so there's a strong argument that it shouldn't be easily dismissed. You could argue, as some of her smarter supporters have, that she turned high unfavorable rates in NY around (including conservative upstate NY) with intensive campaigning in 2000, and that there is evidence that her skills as a candidate will bring those numbers down a bit. I happen to believe that the NY example is of limited value because the Republican Party never opposed her with the type of strength she will encounter nationally and, after all, NY is a mostly Democratic state with a mostly friendly media. If you want to do Hillary a favor, there is a legitimate discussion to be had here. Smearing her opponents is not a smart way to go.

[DFW]

68. You miss my point

I don't have any quarrel with her opponents, I just have a quarrel with those
who constantly post negatives about Hillary with apparent Schadenfreude. I'm not
looking to do her a favor. I'd rather do Al Gore a favor, if anyone. I'd be happy
for his administration to begin 8 years after what should have been his inauguration
day. Better late than never, especially if a Republican is the alternative.

But one thing I won't be doing is publishing post after post of what I think is wrong
with any other Democratic candidate (unless Zell Miller declares), especially if it
just repeats that same theme over and over again, and even if it contains valid data,
at least data that is currently valid.

If you think I'm going to speak out about the relentless negative tone of some posters
against one particular candidate--Hillary now, who knows next month?--you're spot on. I
don't think it contributes much to the discussion. I respect your right to call me wrong,
but that's still my position. It's not the tearing down of Hillary that I find
unpleasant. It's the tearing down I find unpleasant. I just don't find it constructive
discourse. Call me guilty of what you will, I can handle it. I think spitting on the sidewalk
is distasteful, no matter whose street it is, if you get my drift.

As for New York State not being representative of the country, I'm in full agreement there.
My father was a Washington correspondent for a conservative small town newspaper in upstate New
York for many decades, and knew most everything (and every one) there was to be known about
that state. This goes back a LONG way. I mean he knew every governor of New York from Dewey through
Cuomo, and I still have an autographed photo to HIS father signed "from his friend, Franklin Roosevelt."
I was the first generation of my family to be born and raised in the South since
the 19th century. Normally, I'd give Hillary far less of a chance of carrying Virginia, where
I grew up, or Texas, where my legal residence has been for 25 years. I would give Obama, Edwards
and Gore a decent chance of carrying at least Virginia, and Gore a fighting chance of carrying
Texas, even if it seems a lost cause for now. But I know a LOT of people in the TX Democratic
party, and they are working like a sleeping hornets' nest that has been whacked once too often,
and I think the worst we will do in 2008 is make the Republicans divert a LOT of money to Texas,
a state they have taken for granted for decades.

[lancdem]

27. I doubt Obama's unfavorables will stay that low

I wish they would, though. If he does overtake HRC and become the front-runner, his treatment by the media will definitely change. Count on it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. HRC's unfavorables are in a league of their own

No one running for president comes close. One poll had her unfavorables at roughly 20 points higher than anyone. Obama, Edwards (who has better favs/unfavs than even Obama) will never reach the high unfavorables of HRC. Neither will Rudy, Romney, or McCain...

[rinsd]

33. Where do you get this info?

"Edwards (who has better favs/unfavs than even Obama)"

I haven't seen any poll showing that.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. Here is one showing that in NH (Democratic voters only)

Clinton
March/April 64% 24%
February 74% 15%

Edwards
March/April 80% 8%
February 74% 13%

Obama
March/April 69% 10%
February 67% 12%

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6920

Sorry, I have not

[rinsd]

60. But we are discussing the electorate as a whole.

Otherwise the thread title would have been Clinton with 24% Unfavorables!

[elizm]

29. And...

..Senator Obama will handle it with the same grace and dignity he has thus far...I have no doubt.

[Colobo]

31. Yes, and let kick this great thread up!

[Az_lefty]

36. She'll be right up there with bush soon...

[MethuenProgressive]

38. The Right-dominated MSM is doing an excellent job-

shaping public opinion regarding Democratic Presidential hopefuls.
"Excellent" is the manner of Der Stürmer, I mean.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Except regarding Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel, Biden, and Dodd

Only HRC has high unfavorables. Not even the Republican candidates come close. The problem isn't some big conspiracy against HRC. The problem is HRC.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Those wounds you see on Hillary are all self-inflicted

It was she, not the MSM, that said that she would leave it up to others to decide if homosexuals were inherently immoral, as General Peter Pace had said.

It was she, not the MSM, that said she was not ready to support Feingold/Reid Iraq exit resolution.

We can go on and on detailing the many times in which Hillary failed to rise to the occasion, always playing it safe, never taking a stand on what should have been her core issues.

Those that stand for everything, stand for nothing!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

53. truer words seldom spoken so consisely and accurately.

what U said.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. Hey now, she did take a courageous stand on video games with Holy Joe

We know how politically tough it was to take a stand against video games!

[IndianaGreen]

55. Standing with Holy Joe is like sharing a jacuzzi with Dick Cheney

Not the sort of thing to be expected from any self-respecting Democrat.

[skipos]

59. For now, the polls are very consistent. Hillary is weak in the gen. election

but strong in the primary. Ras polls...

Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (49%) Giuliani (43%) EDWARDS WINS BY 6%
Obama (43%) Giuliani (44%) OBAMA LOSES BY 1%

Clinton (47%) McCain (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 1%
Edwards (47%) McCain (38%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
Obama (46%) McCain (42% ) OBAMA WINS BY 4%

Clinton (50%) Romney (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Edwards (55%) Romney (29%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Obama (51%) Romney (36%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Obama (49%) Brownback (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Obama (50%) Hagel (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (50%) Thompson (36%) EDWARDS WINS BY 14%
Obama (49%) Thompson (37%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

Clinton 48% Favorable, 50% Unfavorable
Edwards 57% Favorable, 35% Unfavorable
Obama 59% Favorable, 34% Unfavorable

Candidate / Def. Vote FOR / Def. Vote AGAINST / Net
Obama / 33% / 33% / Even
Edwards / 26% / 37% / -11
Clinton / 30% / 48% / -18

[draft_mario_cuomo]

63. The Lieberman wing of the party only cares about the primary and regaining control of the party

[elizm]

70. Exactly...

...They just want to make sure they keep their positions of power (and their jobs) in the Democratic Party. Winning the White House doesn't seem to matter much to them. After all, didn't they have the big meeting a while back one weekend to try to figure what to do about the 'netroots'??

[SaveElmer]

71. Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat...therefore...

There can be no Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party...

[David Zephyr]

69. Is risking four more years of GOP control of the Executive Branch worth loyalty to Clintons?

The decision by the Supreme Court today should make everyone in the Democratic sober up about betting the entire farm on someone the American people do not like.

[MODemocrat]

72. Sorry, but I will not be rooting for Hillary's downfall

I can see how happy this post makes the Hillary Haters. Good post for all of them. }( :-( ;( :boring: :boring:

[Generator]

73. Nowhere to go but up!

Thanks for the cheer.