Clinton's Surge Sparks Debate on Whether She Can Win; Impact on Other Races

Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Connie Johnson, the Democratic whip in the Missouri House, says her party has a shot in 2008 at winning back some of the dozens of legislative seats lost to Republicans in recent elections -- unless Hillary Clinton is the presidential nominee.

``This is not personal,'' said Johnson, 38. ``It's simply politics that a candidate who is more liberal in nature could have an adverse impact on down-ballot candidates.''

While national polls give Clinton a commanding lead for her party's nomination, some Democratic officials and officeholders fret that those surveys mask negative feelings about her. They say those perceptions raise questions about her ability to defeat a Republican nominee, and may cause trouble for other Democratic office-seekers in swing states like Missouri and in the South.

``You've got Democrats who very actively worry about this,'' said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who isn't aligned with any candidate.

Clinton's opponents for the party nomination are fanning the flames. In a debate last week, Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd questioned whether she is ``electable'' and ``can bring the country together.'' In an October memo, the campaign of Illinois Senator Barack Obama said she would damage ``the hopes of other Democrats seeking office.''

---EOE---

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a0DpctfUExV0&refer=us

only if it is valid to the voters.
The pols have their reasons for projecting these "worries". Is this really taking hold
for second thoughts in the electorate whether they are true or not? They must not be if the candidates and their backers have to risk pushing these points personally and openly. They could be valid. I happen to think they are and at the least we are sacrificing points for Hillary and in ways that go beyond the old talking point negatives- such as campaign style. It has not been safe to sacrifice points for any nominee in recent elections. There is little time for the voters to weigh this in as a factor, if ever.

Since when?

But, then again, that's always been my argument: she's not really liberal, so Republican-leaning independents SHOULD, in theory, like her, but since the media has made her out to be VERY liberal, which she's not, it will effect her chances in reddish-purple states.

Why don't we have a viable candidate who's seen as more conservative, but is actually liberal?

Oh - that's right, he's not running this time around. :(

That's one of my main arguments against Hillary's candidacy - like her husband, she's a right-leaning centrist (corporatist) that is widely portrayed and seen as a liberal, which is a disaster in the making for the Democrats.

It would be better if it were the opposite with her - a liberal widely seen as a centrist. It seems like the only way a true progressive is going to get into the Oval Office is as a Trojan Horse.

For the last almost year since she announced she has been called republican lite....darn...that didn't work so now she is being called a liberal.

What they gonna call her if that doesn' work...an alien from outer space that got off one of the UFO's that Kucnich saw....gee de doop de dee.


One thing the flip flops from THAT other candidate is showing........