Why is Hillary Clinton so far ahead in the '08 nationwide polls?

Your honest opinion, please?

"You will be notified if another opening is made available. Sincerely, The Media."

Why is her support increasing?

Why am I unsurprised?

"She's a woman?"

Where's the "He's Black" poll for Obama? I'm guessing it's coming. Sadly.

I thought we were better than this shit as a party....

:)

Anyone claiming it isn't is, dare I say, a bit defensive? Or in denial? Because it's part and parcel of many of the "complaints."

We're the party of inclusion. Not the party of "Oh FUCK, there's a WOOOOOOOOOOMAN on the ballot!!" or "Oh, my, MY...a guy who is BLACK wants to be our PRESIDENT!!!!"

But I have to say, in this "progressive" environment, I sense a lot of Neanderthal BS in the tortured justifications against these two candidates. And I find it sad.

But it's THERE. People will complain about anything and everything other than the unspoken obvious point--the vagina, or the Blackness.

I can't get the prejudice. But it's there.

Women make up the largest portion of the poor here. Women are victimized in this country.

Which fits this country best:

1) This country is an intellectual mecca, where equality reigns supreme and women are considered on a par with men for any position, or;
2) This country is racist, sexist, has a cowboy mentality, loves war, and gives one hell of a lot of votes to dunces like GW Bush not once, but twice.

Of course, everyone here will happily pick Answer Number One.

And of course, that I should "chill."


You illustrated my point with your multiple choice inquiry, there.

I find it amazing how many people gripe about the two "non-mainstream/non-white male" candidates without actual knowledge. Just a load of assumptions. You show them where they've erred, and they go look for some other reason to find fault.

But the real reason? It's gender. Or maybe race. We've a long way to go.

I have encountered more than a few Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters who insist that it's high time that a woman set foot in the White House, regardless of whom the woman is.

They don't want to score symbolic points. And they don't want symbolic toadies, either. That's a GWB trick.

of considered, careful steps via very Democratic New York State. Had she run without being a U.S. Senator, her candidacy would have been hobbled from the start by the charge, "Well, she's never held elective office."

But New York voters have twice sent her to represent them in the U.S. Senate. That strengthened her baseline support and disabled her detractors' chief political point.

Her husband won two terms. Voters rejected Carter. If Dubya cheated Gore and Kerry, and I believe he did, then it's nevertheless true that both those elections were close ones. Dubya enjoyed significant support, a fact that holds perilous realizations that a whole lot of people in the nation don't like the same things I do and vote accordingly. Gore and Kerry were far more qualified and thougtful men than George W. Bush and still Bush won roughly 50% of U.S. voters' allegiance over the last 8 years. Only very recently has his public approval tanked below the electability line.

So the Big Dog always can play the winner's card. His triumph over Poppy and the hapless Bob Dole is indisputably part of the winner's aura that his wife enjoys. Like him or not, Bill Clinton can work a crowd. Not even Reagan could match him on the campaign trail.

The media is complicit in mainstream and homogenizing tastes. O look! Here's a celebrity woman and a talented black guy -- let's create some buzz by exaggerating the tension between these two -- the ratings demand it!

Many very thoughtful women want a woman in the White House. Much of Senator Clinton's support is attributed to her appeal to those women voters.

Last, a lot of Bill's people are in Hillary's camp, and many satellite associates are enjoined to the effort. These people know how to gather a like-minded crowd. They know how to work it to raise money. They know how to pad a rolodex, and they win elections.

I add those things up and get Senator Clinton's current poll numbers.

If memory serves correctly, Bill was plenty polarizing in the U.S. His popularity was greater overseas than here. I have no doubt that those who disliked Bill will not be more congenial toward Hillary. That is why I believe that if she is the Democratic candidate, the election will be close, and that will give the Republicans another chance to steal it in 2008.

I like Obama, but he isn't prepared for the kind of battle the Republicans will wage in 2008. Our best candidate to win in 2008 is John Edwards. He is campaigning the correct way, is appealing to a large segment of voters besides Democratic purists, and, through his litigation experience, understands how to do battle with the corporate interests.

If Senator Clinton is our nominee in Denver next fall, she has my vote in the general.

Same goes for Biden, Obama, Richardson, and so on down the list. Hart, Clark, and Gore are yet to be heard from.

I was a very strong Mario Cuomo for President supporter in 1992. He was about to announce for a run the night before the deadline to enter the New Hampshire primary, then pulled out. Bill Clinton didn't win in NH that year but he placed well enough to gain traction and go on to pick up a first-ballot win to be our nominee.

I think your analysis of his overseas popularity is very good stuff. He is God in Ireland, for example.

An Edwards-led ticket in 08, IMO, would be a wider win for us. Agree with you that Senator Clinton would tighten the race. I think DUers disagree on why that might be so. Two-thousand eight is still a ways off but right now the trendlines do not favor a Republican win for the White House -- it favors us, no matter what ticket we run -- and so I'm generally optimistic but would be more enthusiastic about some Democrats on our ticket than I would be about others.

Americans love celebrities. Now she has to convince real Democrats in real primaries that she can do the best job and has the best chance of winning.

But her national polling numbers are due to her celebrity status.

It should have been there, IMO.

believe it or not, there are quite a few people who will vote in a year from November who do not know who Barak Obama is, or really care at this point.

Indeed.

Republicans who voted for Lieberman as a way of voting against Lamont might be now supporting Senator Clinton so that they can cut off the support during the Presidential election and give Senator Clinton a Monday-October-28th-1929-style push down in the polls.

My vote is towards Obama right now, but everytime I see her, I smile and get a warm feeling. She is everything that went right with women's lib. I don't understand how a feminist could hate her.

go hand in hand - they want her for precisely that reason.

The media likes the Big Dog now? They sure weren't friendly toward him when he was in office.

There is a touch of 'she's riding on her man's coatails or she never could make it' in your post. I think Hillary would do a better job as President than Bill did unless the Republicans win a majority in Congress. Bill Clinton is a smart man, there are many good things about him, but Old Bush's NAFTA wasn't one of them. He also dirtied the office and the Democratic party by not keeping his pants zipped. There would have been no way the Repubs could have beaten Gore if not for that. Bill gave the Repubs a whole bunch of ammunition.
So to say Hillary is only where she is because she is married to Bill is not true in my opinion. She has smarts, vision, and values. She's not riding on anyone's coattails.

Probably a combination of some of the stuff you said. She has advantages that she hasn't even begun to tap yet.

If she's this far ahead and hasn't even considered breaking a sweat, then this really isn't a race.