Clinton Fatigue: A smear created by the rightwing, now embraced by the leftwing

Name Recognition?



Gallup says Obama's name recognition is 95%. Why does he trail Clinton nationally by 20+ in most polls and in most early primary states?

Clinton fatigue, my ass!



Hillary Clinton - Unelectable?

it is important to note that all the Democrats have negative ratings in excess of 40%. To be sure, Senator Clinton's at 49% is slightly higher than Senator Obama (45%) and Senator Edwards (41%). But in a polarized country with a polarized electorate, high negative ratings for leading Democratic and Republican candidates should not be surprising.

This same trend was certainly evident in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Rasmussen asked a national sample of 1,000 voters how likely it is that Clinton, Obama, or Edwards would win the election were they nominated for President. Overall, three quarters (75%) of Democrats said Clinton was likely to win, vs 73% for Edwards and 69% for Obama.

Moreover, the Rasmussen data show that there is greater confidence among Democrats vis a vis Clinton than for either Edwards or Obama. Overall, 41% of Democrats said Clinton was very likely to win the White House if nominated vs 26% for Obama and 24% for Edwards.

Moreover, Senator Clinton leads all her prospective opponents in both the Rasmussen daily Presidential Tracking Poll and compilation prepared by Real Clear Politics. She has opened up what appears to be a commanding lead in the nominating process, according to the national and state by state estimates prepared by RCP.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/electability_and_hillary_clinton

if she's the nominee. But sorry, I have Clinton fatigue and it has nothing to do with the right wing. I don't want the presidency split between two families, for a generation.

I'm NOT fatigued, I'm DAMN exhausted from IT!!

and false stories planted in the media....or is your original post completely pointless?

... he trails badly. :shrug:


Or is your reply completely clueless?

Clinton's policies literally paved the way for Bush's abuses of power.

NAFTA CALEA DMCA

Huzzah for Alternating Dynasties!

or wants us to believe that we do. We may actually prefer her or not but the coverage hasn't exactly been a search for comparative policy positions.

The fact that you continually dismiss the track record of your candidate isn't amusing.

then we can talk about what's REAL!

Your "Clinton fatigue, my ass" graph is ten years old. It's about Bill, not Hillary. Is Bill running again?

Unlike your ancient graph, this line from your OP is actually relevant to the 2008 election:

"Overall, 41% of Democrats said Clinton was very likely to win the White House if nominated"

Wow! 41% of Democrats think she can actually win the White House.

Impressive.

Your "Clinton fatigue, my ass" graph is ten years old. It's about Bill, not Hillary. Is Bill running again?

But the term "Clinton fatigue" includes Bill, does it not?

Unlike your ancient graph, this line from your OP is actually relevant to the 2008 election:

"Overall, 41% of Democrats said Clinton was very likely to win the White House if nominated"

Wow! 41% of Democrats think she can actually win the White House.

Impressive.

And the number is less for other Dems. So Obama/Edwards/Kucinich fatigue must be HIGH!!!

I think if Bill were able to run, he would beat any one of the Republicans in a rout.
So I don't really think "Clinton fatigue" is a major factor in 2008.
I am, however, deeply concerned about the possibility of a Fred Thompson/Hillary general.

If the numbers are even less for Obama/Edwards/Kucinich, I've got even more to worry about now.

So. You think Hillary's Supreme Court choices will be the same as George's?

Do you really?

And, this may shock you, but we're going to have corporations in this country no matter who wins. Do you believe that Hillary's DOJ will refuse to prosecute corporations or interfere with settlement negotiations as George's has?

Do you really?

You might want to examine the blind, unthinking hatred of some of your opinions.

corporate ties, H1B visas, Tata Group outsourcing, etc. Blind, unthinking and hatred seem to be your ONLY defense when I challenge your candidate's established track record regarding corporate indulgence and abuses.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That is the fundamental difference between corporatists and the rest of us.

Most of the rest of us recognize that WELL REGULATED corporations are necessary and GOOD for our economy. It is the laissez faire style regulation that allows the criminals to take charge of the corporations and also control our government and in effect screw our economy.

Do you think that Hillary will reverse the corporatist serving treaties of NAFTA and GATT that her husband brought us that gave the corporate veto over all world government members' national sovereignty that their WTO organization gave us? Huh?

I want a supreme court justice that will reverse the "court clerk activist" decision that gave us corporate personhood, not someone that just wants to draw more attention to how they vote on Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade IS important, but not to the corporatists. It is on issues like these that they seek to distract and bring out votes but still manipulate the outcome of who we vote for so that a corporate serving shill (whether it be Republican or Democrat) is in office.

In what way does this alter these numbers?

Doug Schoen: 2+2=4
flpoljunkie: But Doug Schoen! LOOK! LOOK! Doug Schoen said it!!

The Republicans are holding back, hoping we will be foolish enough to make her our nominee.

"it is important to note that all the Democrats have negative ratings in excess of 40%. To be sure, Senator Clinton's at 49% is slightly higher than Senator Obama (45%) and Senator Edwards (41%). But in a polarized country with a polarized electorate, high negative ratings for leading Democratic and Republican candidates should not be surprising."

If only we had 4 more percent in the last two elections, eh?

to go down and her positives up.

Gallup debunked Rove's falsehood.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28477

Amazing she's doing so poorly, even with the insider connection.

abused like say Kucinich? Our rights are the most important issue for any of us and for a candidate to be presidential, they should have the will and courage to stand up for the people they represent and speak the truth. Anything less is a cowardly sheep wearing a wolf costume but with a smile. Wake up America before its too late!

Take a gander and get off The Conspiracy Train and onto The Reality Express

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008





I'll include a small sample

Poll source ↓ Date ↓ Highlights ↓
American Research Group July 30-2 August 2007 Hillary Clinton 38%, John Edwards 19%, Barack Obama 17%, Joe Biden 4%, Bill Richardson 4%, Dodd 1%, Kucinich 1%, Clark -, Gravel -, undecided 16%
Capital Survey Research Center 11 July-13 July, 16 July-19 July 2007 Hillary Clinton 33%, Barack Obama 29%, John Edwards 9%, Al Gore 6%
Mobile Register-University of South Alabama April 16-April 19, 2007 Hillary Clinton 33%, Barack Obama 25%, John Edwards 12%, Al Gore 8%, Joseph Biden 1%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Bill Richardson 1%, Christopher Dodd <1%, undecided 19%
Capital Survey Research Center 19 February-22 February 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 19%, John Edwards 9%, Al Gore 8%, Other 8%, undecided 21%
American Research Group 8 February-13 February 2007 Hillary Clinton 44%, Barack Obama 13%, John Edwards 11%, Wesley Clark 3%, Christopher Dodd 3%, Bill Richardson 1%, Tom Vilsack 1%, undecided 23%
Capital Survey Research Center Poll 20 January 2007 Hillary Clinton 27%, Barack Obama 19%, John Edwards 14%, Al Gore 11%

Arizona

Flag of ArizonaArizona winner: To be determined
Primary date: February 5, 2008
Poll source ↓ Date ↓ Highlights ↓
American Research Group July 23-July 26, 2007 Hillary Clinton 39%, Barack Obama 25%, Bill Richardson 9%, John Edwards 8%, Biden 1%, Clark 1%, Kucinich 1%, Dodd -, Gravel -, undecided 16%
Rocky Mountain Poll May 24-May 29, 2007 Hillary Clinton 26%, Barack Obama 22%, Al Gore 13%, Bill Richardson 7%, John Edwards 7%, other 5%, undecided 20%
Cronkite/Eight Poll April 19-April 22, 2007 Hillary Clinton 25%, Barack Obama 20%, John Edwards 18%, Al Gore 17%, undecided 20%
Cronkite/Eight Poll 27 February 2007 Hillary Clinton 28%, Barack Obama 24%, Al Gore 16%, John Edwards 14%, undecided 18%
American Research Group 8 February-13 February 2007 Hillary Clinton 33%, Barack Obama 24%, John Edwards 13%, Bill Richardson 4%, Tom Vilsack 3%, Wesley Clark 1%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, undecided 22%
Behavior Research Center/Rocky Mountain Poll 24 January 2007 Hillary Clinton 32%, Barack Obama 18%, John Edwards 15%, Al Gore 15%, John Kerry 5%, Joe Biden 3%, undecided 12%
Cronkite/Eight Poll 24 January 2007 Barack Obama 29%, Hillary Clinton 23%, John Edwards 15%, Al Gore 12%, undecided 21%

Arkansas

Flag of ArkansasArkansas winner: To be determined
Primary date: February 5, 2008
Poll source ↓ Date ↓ Highlights ↓
American Research Group March 16-March 19, 2007 Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 16%, John Edwards 12%, Bill Richardson 2%, Wesley Clark 8%, Joe Biden 2%, Chris Dodd 0%, Mike Gravel 0%, Dennis Kucinich 0%, undecided 11%

California

Flag of CaliforniaCalifornia winner: To be determined
Primary date: February 5, 2008
Poll source ↓ Date ↓ Highlights ↓
The Field Poll August 3-August 12, 2007 Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 19%, John Edwards 10%, Bill Richardson 3%, Joe Biden 3%, Kucinich 2%, Dodd 1%, Gravel 1%, undecided 12%
Survey USA August 2-August 5, 2007 Hillary Clinton 51%, Barack Obama 27%, John Edwards 14%, Other 6%, undecided 3%
American Research Group July 30-2 August 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 22%, John Edwards 16%, Joe Biden 5%, Bill Richardson 5%, Dodd 1%, Kucinich 1%, Clark -, Gravel -, undecided 15%
Survey USA June 29-July 1, 2007 Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 24%, John Edwards 14%, Other 9%, undecided 3%
San Jose State California Primary June 18-June 22, 2007 Hillary Clinton 37%, Barack Obama 15%, John Edwards 15%, Other 33%
Datamar June 6-June 11, 2007 Hillary Clinton 36.9%, Barack Obama 24.3%, John Edwards 14.8%, Richardson 6.5%, Joe Biden 4.5%, Dennis Kucinich 2.4%, Mike Gravel .8%, Chris Dodd 0%, undecided 9.9%
Survey USA June 1-June 3, 2007 Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 28%, John Edwards 14%, Other 8%, undecided 4%
American Research Group May 4-May 8, 2007 Hillary Clinton 37%, Barack Obama 28%, John Edwards 15%, Bill Richardson 3%, Biden 2%, Dodd 2%, Kucinich 2%, Clark -, Gravel -, undecided 11%
Survey USA May 5-May 6, 2007 Hillary Clinton 48%, Barack Obama 27%, John Edwards 15%, Other 7%, undecided 3%
Working Californians April 9-April 12, 2007 Hillary Clinton 38%, Barack Obama 19%, John Edwards 17%, Other/Undecided 26%
Survey USA March 30-April 1, 2007 Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 26%, John Edwards 17%, Bill Richardson 4%, Other 4%, undecided 5%
The Field (without Gore) March 20-21 March 2007 Hillary Clinton 41%, Barack Obama 28%, John Edwards 13%, Bill Richardson 4%, Biden 3%, Kucinich 2%, Dodd 0%, undecided 9%
The Field (with Gore) March 20-21 March 2007 Hillary Clinton 31%, Al Gore 25%, Barack Obama 21%, John Edwards 8%, Bill Richardson 3%, Biden 2%, Kucinich 1%, Dodd 0%, undecided 9%
Survey USA March 3-March 5, 2007 Hillary Clinton 44%, Barack Obama 31%, John Edwards 10%, Bill Richardson 4%, Other 5%, undecided 6%
Datamar 9 February-13, 2007 Hillary Clinton 34.3%, Barack Obama 23.6%, John Edwards 16.2%, Bill Richardson 7.2%, Dennis Kucinich 4.2%, Joe Biden 3.9%, Christopher Dodd 0.8%, Mike Gravel 0.3%, Tom Vilsack 0.2%, undecided 9.2%
American Research Group 4 January-7, 2007 Hillary Clinton 36%, Barack Obama 33%, John Edwards 6%, John Kerry 4%, Wesley Clark 2%, Joe Biden 1%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Bill Richardson 1%, Christopher Dodd 0%, undecided 16%

Had Gore not been thwarted by the corrupt USSC we would not be, in any sense of he word, talking about family dynasties in 2007.

Some Democrats claiming they will not vote for Hillary because this fatigue thing, simply pivots on the corrupt USSC and gives credence to their deplorable bias, a huge black mark that will remain forever in the history of our great nation.

Why do some Democrats even want to do this???

why are we harder on our own than on the thug in power?

... what's wrong, people? Can't refute the information?

an avian vet to have their beaks professionally trimmed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

repulsive.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of what you have to say here is better suited to a child's playground. Keep it up, by all means.
This behaviour is just another embarrasmment for your candidate... thanks for helping undo Hil's chances.

Hypocritical preachers are always a hoot

yeah, stupid to think it helps HIl.
But please ...continue, the both of you. Good work burying her...




on edit: ( all in sub line: corrected Dem with more accurate Liberal and added Bashing)

Do take care. Life is short :hi: :pals:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Great quality, great product, great company, great family.

If it's not Clinton "nostalgia" that's the problem, it's Clinton "fatigue" that's the problem. It makes me dizzy sometimes.

The only way the GOP can beat Clinton is with the help of Democrats.

:thumbsup:

Why can't we just save time and put people in office with Rasmussen polls?

NAFTA Destroys Farming Communities in U.S. and Abroad http://www.google.com/search?q=NAFTA+Destroys+Farming+Communities+in+U.S.+and+Abroad
CALEA http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/?f=summary.html
DMCA http://www.anti-dmca.org/faq_local.html

sucks does`t it.....

A couple more greatest hits on the American people...

Effects of Telecommunications Act:
http://www.consumersunion.org/telecom/lessondc201.htm

Effects of China Most Favored Nation Status:
http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=14694

It's from WIKI, but you use the national poll information from Rasmussen....

:popcorn:

:shrug:

You grabbed the map from a WIKI site...care to divulge what the data was based on the map?

Just asking...

:popcorn:

:popcorn:

the rest of the candidates do not have a chance in hell to be nominated?

:toast:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1764948

Seems like 75% of DU'ers responding to this poll want HRC to drop out and go home.

Vote your choice!

DU is an amazing site and a great force in the online polical world. But let's not kid ourselves - we are not reality. If we were Howard Dean or perhaps Wes Clark would have won the nomination in 2004.

But in the end it was John Kerry.

Doesn't mean I disregard the power of what is happening here - just means I need to keep it in check. I think DU has done alot of great things but sometimes we DUers forget that most Americans consider online as a place to check sports scores, have fun with myspacefacebook and download porn

quoting a TV comedian is so representative of the "real world"????

Its her supporters that give me fatigue. Snarky, militant. You are a good example. One asks a question about the map and here comes snarky.
With popcorn.
Its like "look at me, Im sooo right!"
Maybe. But why is it that here in Oregon where I am active in a few political roundtables, I know no one who will vote for her in the primary? Not one. Its freaking me out. It makes no sense.

I have not decided yet who to support in the primary (though I am thinking Edwards). I have not given a penny to any candidate.
I find myself more influenced here at DU by a candidates supporters than the actual candidate.
I know the messages, I know the candidates, I will support whomever in the GE. But for now, I just read, learn and listen.
But most Clinton threads I see I ignore.


:shrug:

The poster you refer to posts Sean Hannity talking points against the Clintons, KNOWS where the map is from and, hence, knows what it is based on. And HE used the snarkly popcorn first.

Sorry.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Seriously!!

First - great post thank you!

Second - I don't even know if who I'm going to support in the primaries; however, I highly doubt that it'll be Hillary. Doesn't mean that I'm anti-Clinton, just means I'd like to see someone else although I have no problem actively & willinglyh support her should she get the nomination.

Stop drinking the grape koolaid! If you don't like Hillary, then focus your energy NOT on bashing her but getting someone else the democratic nomination instead.

We dislike Hillary, therefore we must be controlled by the Republicans:eyes: And they say I'm a tin foil hatter, HAH! Oooga boooga booga, the almight 'Pugs are causing us all to hate Hillary.

Please, get people some credit for being well educated thinking adults. There are plenty of reasons to hate Hillary(NAFTA, Patriot Act, the WAR, etc). Implying that we're all brainwashed by 'Pugs is insulting and demeaning.

I know Hillary has issues - but instead of bashing her I'd rather fight hard for the candidate that I want to see win.

But folks like you just see it so much easier going negative instead of actually trying.

I know I don't want Hillary as my nominee but god forbid I'm going to be one of these desparate people who thinks posting anti-Hillary threads on a forum for DEMOCRATS is the solution.

The post of yours that I originally replied to implies that those of us who criticize Hillary are somehow magically controlled by the 'Pugs, ie we don't have any free will and are basically mindless automotrons. Sadly, you aren't giving people the credit of free will, common sense or intelligence with such postings. Sorry, but that isn't the case. We're not controlled by the 'Pugs, we criticize on valid grounds, like her stance on the war or her pro-corporate leanings among other things. Yet you insist that this isn't the case, that we're all somehow brainwashed. Thanks for that insulting perception:eyes:

Secondly, Hillary bashing hasn't been around for twenty years. Hell, twenty years ago I barely knew who Hillary was, and only because I live in the state next door to where she was first lady. At most, Hillary's been getting kicked around for fifteen years, and perhaps not even that long. In addition, one thing that you forget is that many of us on the left came to the defense of her and her husband for we saw that the 'Pugs were getting out of control and out of line. But still, somehow we're controlled by the 'Pugs, doing their will:eyes:

Third, you seem to think that people can't do two things at the same time, ie work hard for their own candidate and yet criticize others. Gee, more condescending garbage. I don't know about you, but I can keep more than one or two things in my head at the same time and perform several different actions in my life.

Finally, your posting seems to be a not so subtle way of trying to silence critics who have legit reasons not to want Hillary in office. Sorry, but such attempts at silencing others on your part is reprehensible. This is the primary season, and all should have a voice, whether they're people of free will, controlled by the 'Pugs, aliens or their dogs. This is, after all, an open forum.

So please, don't think that we're all brain dead robots mindlessly mouthing words. You say you dislike Hillary, and I'm sure that you've got intelligent, logical reasons for doing so. Try extending that same benefit of the doubt to your fellow posters, rather than simply assuming or coming up with wild theories. Thanks.

You just are not fortunate to bask in her divine glorious light. Witness the framing here. (on edit spelled condescension correctly :blush: )

The Texas Democratic Party electronic straw poll shows Edwards scooping up the Lone Star State, with Obama running second and Clinton third.

Try again...

:scared:

Probably about as accurate as the republican straw poll which was won by Duncan Hunter.

the Bushes were in office to the time the Clintons were or will be in office. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Personally, if I liked Hillary I wouldn't care if we had another Clinton at all.I just don't think Hillary is the best candidate.It has nothing to do with her last name.

I do know a couple people who feel that way, and to say they're playing into the Right-wing's game is downright hilarious.Seriously, these two aren't swayed by much of anything from any party. :shrug:

And it was at work for the years Clinton was in office, and continues today. The neo-cons have taken over the media / courts / executive branch / and nearly have the congress. But for their miscalculation with Diebold, they would have the congress.

And some even on the left, buy into their propaganda. It is stunning to me that I hear the right-wing lies and distortions regurgitated as if we are lemmings nodding our heads in unison agreement as they destroy our democracy.

Clinton is a victim of that machine. She is not "divisive" she is not "cold." They are defining her and we (Americans) are letting them.

All bad things said about her are obviously part of that narrative right?

...disagree. But, this constant regurgitation of the neo-con-talking-points is getting old. Seriously, I thought we were smarter than that.

And, lets have a conversation rather than a smart-ass quip

while in office. Those have nothing to do with right wing talking points. Can't speak for anyone but me, but I am smarter than that. You clearly have the Clinton-supporter plan down, accuse your fellow democrats of being too stupid to have their own valid disagreements with her pro-war, anti-impeachment, pro-nafta, pro-outsourceing positions. Does this count as a conversation?

perhaps you should start your own thread.

Or not I guess.

Your post is insulting and snippy, not someone with whom I would wish to converse.

Typical of a some to pose a question that seemingly calls for "a conversation"... but actually it was a rhetorical question.

"And, lets have a conversation rather than a smart-ass quip" Oh I see you were just scolding.

This machine:

That's what I've got, in spades.

it's going around...

Hillary is a moderate Republican

with only the information provided to them by the corporate media, is NOT a good argument for your candidate.

The majority of people who are actually INFORMED about the issues are nowhere near convinced of her credentials.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

These inside the beltway drones are dedicated to different values that the mainstream base. Certainly their viewpoint is welcome, but their ideas on how to run a campaign , which Hillary will most certainly use if she runs, are straight out of last century's 1992 playbook. While very successful with Bill Clinton, no candidate campaigning via this method has won since. These same folks that run Hillary's campaign today ran All Gore's campaign and John Kerry's campaign. If you want a repeat of 2004 , hey, stick with Hillary and her band of DC insiders. The same ones that fought both Howard Dean and the 50-state strategy tooth and nail. The ones who listen to Rahm Emmanuel. The ones who say "run left, govern right" . The out of the mainstream types that enrage you with their shenanigans almost daily. If you want to turn a huge opportunity into a razor thin loss - then by all means , pretend Hillary isn't the only candidate that will reunite the shattered republican base. Her high negatives tell the story. I have to go work for my candidate now, please ignore any of the lame posts and douchebaggery that follows in response to this. There really isn't anything we haven't heard a gazillion times before.

Just like the Supreme Court, Big Oil and Big Defense
installed Bush, Power broker are SELECTING your
candidate for you and shaping the outcome with
polling, shallow media, issueless coverage,
celebrity hyped fake leadership and manufactured
popularity

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

If she's the nominee, I'll support her with open arms.

And your map says Hillary is leading in Iowa, bullshit!!

As a progressive, there is MUCH to dislike. This is just the latest meme from the HRC-bots to counter the vast distrust she faces amongst the Dem base. Sure, the right-wing lemmings dislike her too, which is especially ironic since, if they actually opened their minds and informed themselves, they'd probably love her. Meanwhile it's the left-wing lemmings who support her. So those of us who bother to inform ourselves and, therefore, dislike her are called all kinds of things by the HRC-supporting left-wing lemmings.

WAKE UP. WE WILL NOT WIN WITH HILLARY AS THE NOMINEE. PERIOD.

Name recognition:

Clinton 95%
Thompson 69%

Rasmussen general election poll 8/28/07:

Clinton 48%
Thompson 44%

Oh well, there's always 2012.

Giuliani 47% Clinton 44%;
Clinton 48% Thompson 44%

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/giuliani_47_clinton_44_clinton_48_thompson_44

Obviously, any observation from the reactionary mind is completely false. Any weak spot of a candidate perceived by conservatives must be completely unfounded, but must tar anyone else who agrees as a primitive monarchist troll deserving of tombstoning.

Just wanted to be clear about this.

Fred D. Thompson "its like the fox guarding the henhouse"
(you muskrat)

We all know where you stand.

We all know how "progressives" deny even their own positions when they are no longer convenient.

Clinton Fatigue was started as a rightwing smear to beat down Al Gore and was reported as such by many Democratic outlets. It's now being embraced by the left out of political convenience.

Now, I can state this definitively because I've followed politics for years. For those who were introduced to it by Howard Dean, all I can say is google can be your best friend.

I am sick of seeing them, hearing them, and reading about them. They do not interest me, nor do they appeal me in any way. They are like a bad TV show that just won't get cancelled, except that I don't have the luxury of changing the channel.

Maybe Chelsea can run in 2020 when everyone is fed up with the Jeb Bush administration.

he has looked into it and judged your fatigue as being part of a vast right wing conspiracy narrative. Sad desperation has a stench about it doesnt it?

I'll be voting for a candidate based on their positions on national and international policy, environmental policies, health care policies and fiscal priorities-- not because I'm tired of someone's name. Not because of who they are married to. Not because of who their father is.

Now, although I'm the first to say that I have neither chosen, nor ruled out a candidate, I'm also the first to say that when someone uses the "Clinton fatigue" talking point (o-k... maybe it's not a talking point-- but it was used effectively as such by talk radio shows in the nineties), it illustrates a somewhat less-than-stellar grasp on issues-- a "style over substance" argument used often by bastions of journalism-- such as E.T. Tonight, or Rush Limbaugh.

And yes-- when I see this particular talking point used by the Progressive community, I begin to wonder if we're not quite as intelligent as we give ourselves credit for.

The Clintons are responsible for my Clinton Fatigue.

and this is not a RW talking point.


I could easily say its because of her non-leadership SINCE the '06 election.But I won't.

It's catching!