that was simply a great year.

by then, Senator Michelle Obama will have been groomed for her presidential run, and then of course it's Chelsea's turn.

Hillary Rodham, and Michelle Robinson; Hillary's Mother is dead, but Mrs, Robinson is alive. I respect that my daughters are the children of my husband, but I certainly am not. Women are not chattels any more. They are separate and distinct from their husbands. Really, I am tired of pointing this out. I'm sure it would never occur to anybody to disparage Chelsea Cinton's husband if he ran for office because he is a Clinton? See what I mean?

I'm not voting for her.
Will vote green unless something better comes along.
A beauty contest between her and jeb is just disgusting, but I'm willing to bet that's the big choice when the time comes.
America gets the government it deserves.

Considering the positive media blitz being conducted it is easy to see how the easily influenced view her in a positive light. There is a reason why she had a lot of negatives and that is because she is mostly negative. There is a lot of time between now and the election and she will be up there in years and by that time the public perception will have changed., But go ahead and waste your time on a dubious candidacy of a failed leader when it is time to vote the real Hillary will have been exposed, the rest of this is just more liberal deception.

a grueling, tough, time-consuming task that lasts longer than ever.

However, the grueling schedule of today's presidential campaign is something to behold . . . and disdain.

60s are the new 40s

It might make more sense to compare her negatives to those of former (or current) incumbent Presidents. In that case, she is in pretty good shape. The lower negatives historically for possible nominees are because a large % of people really know very little about the candidates.

I agree that she has benefited by a lot of very positive support --- and for the last year little coverage on anything other than awards and topics she chooses to address. This is a major advantage over being a sitting Senator, Sec of State or anything else. She can and should use this advantage. She does NOT have to take opinions on specific actions - that may succeed or fail.

I would caution though that comparing to March 2008 is not fair. That was still in the thick of the nomination fight when there were many Democrats who were furious at either Hillary Clinton or Obama. It is also impossible to compare the two numbers because the author chose to use two different measures - and you can not assume that there were no unsure/did not respond responses.

A more important measure is really not favorability, but the head to head numbers. While I am not a fan of HRC, it is very clear to me that head to head, at this point in time, she beats everyone. The statistic that bothers me the most is the direction of the country one. It is not as low as this time relative to 2008, but it is not good. Before he and his myth imploded, Christie did have reasonable numbers compared to Clinton. We need to hope that no "clean" version of whatever made Christie attractive does not exist. (Not to mention, the better alternative is to take actions that improve people's view of what Obama has done.

You sound like an up and coming talent.

Away.

I once got physically ejected from a Lieberman rally when he was running against Lamont for the Democratic nomination because his supporters were chanting "Go Joe Go!...Go Joe Go!..." After three or four stanzas of of this, when I was certain I had the cadence down, I started chanting "Far Far Away!" in contra-position.

"Go Joe Go!"
"Far Far Away!"
"Go Joe Go!"
"Far Far Away!"
"Go Joe Go!"
"Far Far Away!"

Same nasty comments...........

I am stunned when I read these comments. And, most times they are not based in fact. I remember during the campaign Randy Rhodes commented that when it comes to stories on Clinton, no matter how distrustful the source and how farfetched the story, the media would report it and everyone would believe it. Just like DU.

DU has created her out of whole cloth. She is demonized and vilified here hourly. By "progressives?"

Just like "Paul Ryan" and "Humanitarian"

All the lies in the world will never make Hillary Rodham Clinton a good Democrat.

Before using Paul and Hillary in the same sentence.

I'd had enough of that shit for one lifetime.

You read as much crazy sh*t here as you read there. I mostly go, meh, to both sites. The Hillary they portray on both places is a cardboard cutout and not the real woman. You can't take them too seriously.

In that case, George Clooney would beat Hillary easily.

Comparing it to Hillary seems unfair, since a year is 365 days long, and a person is just a person. Hard to make a comparison like that.

One of the best things to happen in 2008 was the primary defeat of Hillary Clinton.

2008 was a very good year.

Maybe a 'Mom' figure is good for the country?

and i went back and forth between her and Obama. I will vote for her if she runs.

removed an unfair perception that she was haughty or arrogant, and her extreme competence as SOS removed any unfair perceptions that she wasn't qualified to be President.

I think those two things removed results in the increase we see IMO, that and the passage of time and lessening of sexism that goes with it.

I ask seriously.