Hillary's status as front-runner slipping in key states.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's popularity in Democratic presidential-preference polls has fallen in the nation's first caucus and primary states in the face of increasing support for her chief rivals for the 2008 nomination.

Pollsters said her weaknesses in Iowa and New Hampshire were the result of the growing popularity of two major opponents -- former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama -- and their populist economic messages, as well as a deepening antipathy toward her among Democratic-leaning independents who dislike her support for the war in Iraq and who question her electability.

"I think Hillary strikes these voters the same way Senator John Kerry did in 2004. They would really like to vote for someone they really like this time. Hillary doesn't fit that characterization right now," said pollster Del Ali of Research 2000, who conducted polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

His findings mirror more recent polling showing a similar national decline in support. "There's been erosion," said pollster John Zogby. "She's polling in the low- to mid-40s nationally."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070110-112457-7197r.htm

Same for the NY Post. Not that I am a Hillary backer, she is far down on my list but the moonie times is an unabashed rw rag, worsxe that faux news in many ways. I have no idea why, with it's anemic circulation of something like 85K that it is ever cited as a credible source... Seems like C-Span quotes them more than most.

She has to stick her finger up and see which way the wind is blowing before speaking out on something.

I used to support her and defend her here, but not anymore.

As Bill did the same. But it would be refreshing to have a candidate that stood before us and be all that we want sans poll influenced shape shifting. Yes that would be sweet! :thumbsup:
:hi:

Don't they know that Hillary has proven her brilliance, bravery, and spinefulness time and time again? Why, just yesterday she went way out on a limb to announce that she's against adding 20,000 troops in Iraq. She may be the first - but mark my words, others will follow.

Nobody deserves the Presidency more than she does.

(OK, I'm just kidding here...)

LOL

creation all along. This is the same media that touted Lieberman in 04.

Because we're reliable NH Primary voters, the Tesha
household has been polled more than once specifically
about our support for HRC. Each time, we try to stress
that we will not only not *SUPPORT* her in the primaries,
but we will actively *WORK AGAINST HER*, keeping people
mindful of all the shit she's pulled.

And if, dog forbid, she emerged as the Democratic
nominee in the general election, we would be hard-
pressed to support her even then.

I'm pretty sure we're not the only ones sending
this message, so it's hard to understand how the
media gets it so wrong, unless they are no longer
interested in reporting the truth. ;)

Tesha

I could throw things at the tv when I hear a talking head blather on about "Who will the repukes nominate to go up against Hillary?" as though it's a done deal and primary voters have no say at all. I think after 8 years of the chimp and cheney, Dems will want to nominate someone without a lot of baggage. Hillary's dragging steamer trunks. No chance she'll be the nominee.

Her frontrunner status was based purely on name recognition. As other candidates become better known, the slate becomes more of a horse race. As it should be. WE HAVE FANTASTIC CANDIDATES. ANY ONE OF THEM COULD LEAD THIS NATION. Selection is going to be on personal preferences and individual emphasis. I'm looking for someone who has a plan for single payer national health. Soon. Now. That's my issue. For others it's the war. Global warming.

Hillary is a smart, hardworking woman in a very tough race. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination will also be smart and hardworking.

It's going to be damned hard to choose.

the "surge"...

Can they be any more transparent?

Mind you, I don't support Hillary, but this smacks as a hit piece because she is not lock step with the evangelical / AIPAC / "lets kill all the muslims" crowd.

...longer than hours to implement a poll. Unless your contention is that they just made the numbers up, which is of course possible but not particularly likely.

Especially since the GOP/MSM has been touting HRC since DAY ONE. There is no one they'd rather win against.

are going to slip. There isn't a sudden new group of democratic voters in the pool, so obviously everyones share is diluted. They knew this whenever they did the poll. They sat on it as a story until Hillary did something they didn't like. So they trot out this hit piece.

And, yeah, given that it's the Moonie Times, they could have just pulled the numbers from their "full moons".

in Iowa and New Hamshire?? Isn't Illinois Sen. Barack Obama next door to Iowa.. Hillary will get her time in the state and her backer will be out in force come Next February. So don't get all upsset about this little story..

.... when "erosion" is a good thing. We need another Clinton like we need a hole in the head.

:eyes:

I personally think she's the most qualified candidate we have except for Al Gore and he doesn't seem to be throwing his hat in the ring. Furthermore, all this Hillary bashing is going to make it so much easier for me to not vote for Barack Obama. In fact, I can't wait to not vote for that guy. :evilgrin:

but it is The Washington Times we are talking about. Their credibility is just a little above that of Bush.