…
If Hillary is so lacking in support then why do Edwards and Obama think she is a threat?

who said she lacked support. The problem is she has supporters who don’t seem to care that she’s deeply flawed. The problem is she has supporters who don’t really know anything about her except she was supposedly a co-president with her husband (though they won’t allow archival records out to confirm it).

Why did they go on the attack against her, rather than look “Presidential” (which they definitely did NOT).

They went on the attack because that’s part of what debates are about. You ‘attack’ your opponent on their personal qualities, their voting records, their experience (or lack thereof) and other things which would show the public that candidate’s inappropriateness for the presidency. You do favor having people learn about a candidate before voting them into office, where they can authorize using nuclear weapons, don’t you?

These guys don’t simply use the MSM polls…they have their own pollsters seeing much the same thing.

Everybody knows Hillary is well-known nationally and is leading those polls. It’s no big secret. I don’t read polls and even I know that.

Everybody knows, as the election near, everybody wants to win and with her in the lead they have to fight harder to change that.

They KNOW that Hillary is ahead in their OWN polls…OF DEMOCRATS!!! That is why they have to challenge her…she is STRONG amongst Democrats. And these are DEMOCRATS with choices in the primaries. I understand that these other candidates need to draw differences between Hillary and themselves, but I really think last night they took Russerts bait and jumped in like pack dogs.

Can you specify some things they said or did which were inappropriate for a debate of candidates for the most important political position in the world?

That made them look very UNPRESIDENTIAL. Clinton could have been challenged on her votes without it getting quite so personal.

Oh, what did they do in challenging her that was personal?

The need to recognize her INTENT at the same time as drawing attention to the risks giving Bush any opening to justify war with Iran. It does need to be pointed out Constitutionally that there is a major difference between a non-binding resolution and a Resolution granting a President Powers under the War Powers Act. Clinton DID contribute to the drumbeat to war with Iran by supporting the Kyl/Lieberman Resolution…but she didn’t authorize Bush to do so.

Uh, actually she did. By designating a part of the Iranian military as a terrorist organization there are specific legal ramifications. It’s not just a superficial irrelevant vote.

Hillary wants to be president. The process shouldn’t be personal, but can be ever so close to it since intellect, character, life experiences and the like are relevant to deciding whether someone is going to be up to the job.

If Hillary can’t take the heat, then how would she ever be able to handle the job?

If Hillary can’t tell America what she stands for without flip-flopping within 10 seconds, then how would we know what she might do as president? And, if you don’t know what she might do, then why on earth would you ever put her in that position?

Hillary was raised Republican and became a Goldwater Girl. Now they compare her to John Kennedy. The contrast is startling and disgusting. I’d rather she went home to New York or Arkansas or Chicago or wherever chameleons come from.

Scarecrow, maybe it’s time we started to track the IP addresses of some of the regular Hillary underminers. They are being paid by someone. I want to know who.

Hillary undermines herself. All her opponents have to do is point it out.

If Hillary can’t take the heat she ought to get out of the kitchen.

seems firedoglake has crowned hilary as president too bad shes a republican and i’ll never vote for her give me edwards or i wont vote f these republican lite types

Could not agree, more 224. I’ve been defending BOTH Clintons since 1993 and would continue to do so as deeply ethical and “good” people. But that doesn’t mean Hillary is presidential material … however regally she projects while under observation/questioning in an observation/questioning venue such as candidate debate. Give us a break, Hillary Apologists. You’re talking about the founders of the Bend-Over-DLC and All-You-Need-Is-Compromise wishy-washy politicos. Bill and Hillary wrote the book on smarmy middle-of-the-roadness. Didn’t you read Bill’s book? He says the Rabid Repubs are “good” people, just of differing opinion. WTF? Such wimpy compassion for rabid mad dogs. This behavior should NOT be rewarded.

Myrtle June,

Sometimes the humor in my head doesn’t translate onto the screen – my bad.

I love how you called out portia!

Oh! :D :D Sorry, here too. Didn’t read that right *blush* Liked your posts too! :-)

Ah, yes. That’s what it’s all about. Nanny Nanny Boo Boo. And my poll source is much much better than yours. And Zogby sucks. And what I say is true; what you say ain’t.

How’s the weather there in Planet-of-One Land?

Sometimes the humor in my head doesn’t translate onto the screen – my bad.

I love how you called out portia!

I didn’t watch the Dem debate last night, but there sure is plenty to read about it today, as the media and the blogs are all opining on it. Chris Cillizza of the WaPo’s The Fix has his usual Winners and Losers piece up in the debate,  and…

Myrtle June,

I don’t even know my IP address!

I don’t need it. I was only asking portia.vs since they asked for mine. I’ve got nothing to hide but I’m now wondering what in the heck is going on in a country that will not move forward and only wants to relive the past. Its a sad sad state of affairs.

Like that movie “Groundhog Day”.

I live outside the bubble, as does most of the country. A vote hasn’t even been cast in the first Primary and the messaging is that Hillary is the candidate, “get behind and push”. Now, I don’t know where that messaging is coming from but its starting to look like its from the Democratic Party. Its another shoot yourself in foot move, if it is coming from them. Anything “top-down” or parental is not a Democratic message. Plus, it will only end up suppressing voter registration and turn out. Whose going to vote if the message is “Hillary is the Nominee”? Its ridiculous.

I wasn’t and wouldn’t ask for your IP address, diogenes. Its the ones who are asking for it you have to quesiton. :-)

1. Where’d you get those poll results that Hillary got the smallest “I’d never vote for that one” numbers?? Cuz the Zogby Poll numbers I’ve seen CONCLUDE THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Hillary got more NEVER, NOT EVER votes of no confidence that even the most laughable straw men of the GOP.

Don’t know if it was the poll scarecrow cited but the AP/Washigton Post Pol of Sept 26-30 based on RANDOM calls to over 1000 people indicates that she has the lowest “I’d never vote for her” numbers…and that this had dropped by almost 10% from the last poll.

But to be fair the differences between Edwards and Obama and Clinton were statistically insignificant they were all about 39-43%. The trends were more interesting though. Edwards and Obama were increasing in their negative perceptions…in addition to losing support from the “definitely will support” end (which was much lower than Clinton).

The Zogby poll you cite has some problems.

“Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President; Other top tier candidates in both parties win more acceptance; Richardson & Huckabee favored most”

While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll show.

AHA! A Zogby INTERACTIVE POLL!

The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.

Zogby’s on-line surveys are ripe for manipulation.For one thing the pool consists of peopel who…ta-da…visit the Zogby polling website. Now just who would those people be? Are they random? Or are they going to be folks that are intensely political, looking for survey information…folks like those involved in campaigns.

Next…just how easy is it for individuals to register multiple identities on the survey. Actually, quite easy. Thus, like the wonderful “Family Research Center” straw poll that Mitt Romney won…”proving” that he is accepted by Christian fundamentalists. It can be stuffed. And that’s exactly what Romney and Ron Paul did to that on-line poll.

I think it would be much harder to taint a random phone survey by AP than a Zogby Internet Interactive Poll based on registrations from their website.