Hillary Clinton is now the most popular politician in America who has held elected office

http://www.openleft.com/diary/18891/hillary-clinton-is-now-the-most-popular-politician-in-america-who-has-held-elected-office

Hillary Clinton is now the most popular politician in America who has held elected office
by: Chris Bowers
Fri May 28, 2010 at 14:00


Here is a weekend factoid for you: among all living politicians in the United States who have ever held elected office, Hillary Clinton the most popular.

That's right. Ever since she became Secretary of State, her favorables have soared into the mid-60's, putting her well clear of any other statewide officeholder in the country. The only national figures who are viewed as favorably as Clinton are Michelle Obama, Colin Powell, and David Patraeus. However, they have never run for office, which invariably lowers your favorables.

Hillary Clinton will turn 69 in in the final week of the 2016 campaign, which makes her slightly younger than Ronald Reagan when he first was elected in 1980. Also, as Secretary of State, a major presidential candidate, a U.S. Senator, and First Lady, she is also probably more credentialed than any other potential Presidential candidate, too. There is even talk she may become the next Secretary of Defense, further adding to her credentials.

Some have said that, in choosing Joe Biden as Vice-President, Barack Obama did not pick a successor to lead the Democratic Party. However, that needs rethinking. Because Barack Obama made her Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton remains remarkably well-positioned to run for President in 2016, even more so than she was in 2008.

Anyway, have a good holiday weekend.

Heads exploding.

What office was she elected to?

Edited to remove snarky comment.

Hillary Clinton is not going to run for office in 2016. Also, a person's approval rating out of elected office is always higher than in office.

I've been reading lately.

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

It's a stretch based on Bowers' desire to make this news.

"her favorables have soared into the mid-60's"

From Bowers' link, it was higher a few months ago.

4/9-11/10 61 35
1/22-24/10 62 35
12/16-20/09 64 30
10/16-18/09 65 32
<...>
4/23-26/09 64 34
12/1-2/08 66 33

He makes it seem like this is a recent occurrence. It's not out of the ordinary


Bill Clinton:

10/16-18/09 64 33

That itch doesn't go away.

Hillary made a comment, Politico:



Speculation via CNN:

I dont think you accept VP unless you are willing to do it for 8 years.

I like Biden.

Hillary is in it for the long haul, truly dedicated.

Women live longer than men.. just a fact.. and we keep our facilities longer..just another fact.. we are long on endurance.. :)

Someday maybe we will elect one and our country will leap forward in all societal categories.

Which makes me very happy. And if Reagan can run at the age of 69, why not Hillary or any other dem candidate? Joe Biden will be 68 years old this November, if God forbid something should happen to President Obama, he'd have to take over. Jerry Brown, running for governor of California, is 72 years old. So what's the difference? If Hillary wants to run, I hope she goes for it.

Sure, Ms. Clinton has experience and maybe possess credentials to be President.

But unfortunately she is as much a corporatist right leaning Dem as Obama....

For America to survive - we need a progressive liberal... a FDR/JFK type...

and had an agressive foreign policy which got us into VietNam?

I do understand your concerns. In the meantime we are overdosed with 24/7 of Sarah Palin. And if I had to chose between her & Hillary...I'm going for Hillary.

Hill, Bill and Lieberman helped create the DLC!!! And HRC is saber ratlling against Iran while turning a blind eye to Israel.

I agree, no more corporatist right wing leaning types. We need a new generation of LIBERAL leaders!

To be honest, this surprised me

Guess what? A lot of the stuff the press wrote about her as first lady wasn't true.

My firm worked with a lot of folks on the Hill and even Republicans were surprised at her capacity to 'Play Well With Others'.

player.

Obviously its a long time between now and then, but I am impressed with her.

been through but 2016, definitely her moment.

So I don't know...if he can do it...why not others?

A lot could happen between now and then. I could find someone I like better.

drift.

It will be interesting.

The fact is that Secretaries of state always poll much higher than their Presidents.

Collin Powell was still polling in the mid 60s when last polled in November 2004, down from numbers as high as 80. (scroll down for Powell) http://pollingreport.com/p.htm#Paul

Further proof?
Look at Condi Rice - see maintained decent numbers, staying close to 50% as Bush descended to numbers in the 30s. Earlier they were in the high 50s and occasionally in the 60s. (Hillary's are better - but Rice's should have been far lower.)

Where as Hillary has and was re-elected twice, her second election as NY Senator winning her 67% of the vote. She may no longer be a politican, but as one she has won more primaries and delegates than any other female candidate in American history. 18 million votes in a presidential election year, aint chopped liver, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton I still think she is a force to be reckoned with, should she decide to run for any office.

regarding their country. And the US Secretary of State has to always be aware of how their moves will play politically both at home and around the world.

I agree with you 100%!

are politicians.

In fact, the Secretary of State, has as her job representing the President's foreign policy. She also is in the meetings which help the President determine his policy. She can, of course speak of political ramifications of any policy, but she must keep true to the position that the President sets.

By law, the Secretary of State can not engage in the political process. She can not endorse or campaign for candidates. She is supposed to be "above politics". You might have noticed that she can not even do anything herself to raise money to pay off her campaign debts, which are mostly paid off. (Bill Clinton and others have had events to do so.)

There are Senators who were re-elected with more than 67% of the vote. In fact, Schumer got above 70% in the election before Hillary's last election in the same state - without spending anywhere near as much as she did. Kerry got over 80% in 2002. Kennedy often got above 67%. It is completely true that she was by far the most successful female Presidential candidate. But, Obama won more and got the nomination. (As to 18 million, I saw very little respect for Kerry after he got over 59 million votes. Just like Hillary - the problem was it was too few to win.)

My point, and that of some others, is that this is contrived to fit Hillary. The fact that she has higher job approval as SOS than Obama has as President does not mean that on any even playing board. The fact is that no matter what administration you look at SOSs poll high. It is likely because their job is representing the US in the world. Do you think that Madeline Albright was more popular than Bill Clinton? There was a point where her approval rating was higher than his.

I did not say that she was not popular or that she would not have a decent chance of winning the nomination if she went for it. I do have a problem with this convoluted claim. Not to mention, there is a logical problem in taking what amounts to a yes/no response and then saying she is more popular. Many of those who approve of Clinton, approve of Obama. Now if for some reason you wanted to poll which of these people were more popular, you would poll that. I suspect, but can't prove that of the people who approve of both, if forced to chose, Obama would be favored by the majority.

I'm betting that in 2016 there will be many primary voters and party leaders who won't have forgotten her behavior in 2008. And I'm not trying to be cruel, but judging by what I saw during the caucuses, a large portion of her base won't be with us anymore in 2016.

02/16/10 "The most recent poll I could find on Hillary was taken Jan. 22-24 of this year by CNN and Opinion Research Corp. Her favorable was 62 percent, against an unfavorable rating of only 35. In fact, Hillary’s unfavorable in that poll series has consistently been below 40 percent since late in 2008. Mrs. Clinton’s job approval as secretary of State is even better. A Jan. 14-17 CBS News poll gave her a 77 percent approval rating, versus 15 percent disapproval. Think these are biased, “liberal” polls? Fox News’s Opinion Dynamics asked job approval questions on Secretary Clinton three times in 2009 (but none yet in 2010). Disapproval of Hillary Clinton in those Roger Ailes-approved polls never exceeded 24 percent."

"It gets better. Last August, USA Today and Gallup asked a national sample whether they would “like to see Hillary Clinton run for president again or not?” A majority said yes, including 75 percent of Democrats."
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/david-hill/81379-clintons-best-obama-in-polls

As for "forgetting" her behavior, Apparently President Obama has. He selected her as his Secretary of State. And why shouldn't he? Hillary Clinton won more primaries and delegates than any other female candidate in American history. Very smart move on his part & she has turned out to a real team player, something he appreciates. I think the two of them work extremely well together. As much as republicans glorify Palin & have always hated Hillary, they wish Palin had these kinds of approvals.

Yes, Hillary's negatives are usually in the 30's and 40's. That's unusual, especially for someone who isn't in elective office. The other public figures mentioned in the OP article all have negatives in the teens and 20's. You'll find a few Democrats with similarly high negatives, like Harry Reid, but not many. Despite the spin you linked from a Republican pollster, it's the same problem she had before the primary. A lot of people still don't like her, despite the bump she received by associating herself with the Obama administration.

I agree that it was probably a smart move for Obama to bring Hillary inside the tent, but once again, that has nothing to do with my point. Plenty of people will still remember the undignified way she acted during the primary and her attempt to stop an African-American from receiving the nomination long after it was clear she had lost. By the way, did you see the documentary of the Obama campaign with scenes of Hillary refusing to take Obama's calls?

Anyone who went to the caucuses saw the obvious. The future of the party is with Obama. The Clinton name had little appeal with younger voters and Hillary's time has passed.

First of all the link I used is the same polling information used on http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary which is directly linked from the Open Left article posted in the OP. Different links, same exact information.

Check it out for yourself.

Secondly, as for the "undignified" behavior...what was so "dignified" about a Democrat praising the legacy of Ronald Reagan, the way Obama did? "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." "He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating" Yes Reagan changed the trajectory, alright, leading a rightwing backlash against the gains of the civil rights and feminist movements that preceded his 1980 election. I can go on and on about Reagan's "change" none of it good. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/17/6445 and http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/011908.html


Of all the presidents he could have mention...he chose a republican...why not FDR who was re-elected 4 times and faced more problems then Reagan could ever dream about, or would even be capable of handling...Reagan made one hell of a mess handling the AIDS crisis..allowing it to spread through the blood banks, because it was a "Gay Disease", and he didnt want to talk about it. An incident which effected my family personally & caused a great deal of pain for us & others.


I was horrified when I read Obama remarks. Truth is, there was better economic expansion and surpluses under Clinton, then Reagan, but Obama could not and would not say it, because he was running against Bill's wife. So ok..its election time & I guess all's fair when you want to attack your opponent. But I still feel that was when hard fellings really started between the two camps.

As for not allowing the "African-American" to receive the nomination...I hope you are kidding. This is a man who is part black, part white, raised by his white grandparents. I'm sure Reagan would have gone all out for him. And if you take a trip to Harlem, NY sometime, I hope you notice the resurgence it is enjoying..thanks to funds given by the Clinton administration & the Clinton Foundation for that purpose. So if you think it' racial..you are barking up the wrong tree. And if I remember correctly, there were calls for Hillary to drop out before all the primaries were completed, and quite frankly I'm glad she didn't. She won the largest states, like California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc and I glad she didn't quit, until the last vote was counted. Maybe the "boys club" didn't like it, but too bad, she was an inspiration to a lot of women. And when she gave her concession speech and spoke about making 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling..it absolutely filled my heart with pride. After that she gave one of the most impassioned speeches backing Obama at the Democratic convention. As a democrat I felt like my party was united & I couldn't wait for Obama to be elected. She campaigned for him, he selected her for his Secretary of State. Seems the only one that has a problem with her, isnt Obama.

I'll say it before & I will say it again...no woman won more primaries and delegates than any other female candidate in American history. And in the link from Open Left when a poll was taken in 2/10 75% of democrats are in favor of her running again. So much for your "theory" of the base deserting her.

As far as the "younger generation" thats the generation I am part of. I grew up while Bill Clinton was in office. And along with a lot of others my age, we remember him fondly. I also dont believe any candidate is in the position to say "they are the future" of the Democratic party, because there are and will be many new faces added...like Grayson, like Weiner, etc. Time will tell...but saying anyone is the "future" is pompous. By the way, it doesn't hurt to remember the good that has been done in the past,either.

You want to hold a grudge...that's your business. But I am very happy to see our President and our Secretary of State working together to make the world a better place for all of us.

Look at it and read it -
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." "He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating"

Obama is NOT praising Reagan. He is saying that the direction the country was going in changed in 1980. He then said that neither Clinton or Nixon were able to shift the direction the country was going in. Did you live through the 60s, 70s, and 80s. If not, what did you learn in history.

The fact is that the country was mostly moving to the left in the 60s and the 70s - civil rights, the great society, the huge feminist movement, and the beginning of the gay rights movement. There was also an incredible environmental movement, which saw Nixon signing legislation to create the EPA and the clean air act and several other major pieces of environmental legislation. Obama's point was that Nixon, though personally a Conservative, did not shift the country in a conservative direction.

When Reagan came in in 1980, 10 Democratic liberal Senators also lost in the same election, including many who were powerhouses, including McGovern, Bayh and Magnuson. The country did shift to the right - and many bad things happened. Reagan was the President who had the good luck (for himself and the RW) to be President at that time. Had Nixon been the one that came to office at that point, he would have accomplished different things and been a RW hero.

When Clinton came to office, the country was still moving to the right - and this affected what he could do. He reformed welfare and he passed NAFTA. (compare to Nixon, who passed legislation we like on the environment.) As the deficits turned to surpluses, neither the President of the country demanded that the surplus be partially used to help though falling behind or for healthcare.

Now, you can find some progressive legislation Clinton passed (like Kennedy's SCHIP) and some conservative things Nixon did, but if you were creating a graphic showing which way the country was moving, there is a major transformation point when FDR came in and when Reagan did. Neither Nixon or Clinton radically changed the direction.

This does not say that Nixon and Clinton weren't strong, ideological people, it says that the moment they were in office was not a period where they would have had the wind to their backs.

It doesn't change the reality that Hillary is a polarizing figure who still has high negatives. Her disingenuous distortion of Obama's Reagan comment is a good example of the insincerity that makes her so unpopular. She's smart enough to know that Obama wasn't praising Reagan's record.

If she chooses to run again, people will remember who first brought up Reverend Wright. Your opinion of Obama's race sounds just like a clip I heard from Rush Limbaugh. It's that kind of ugly shit that makes Hillary and her personality cult so unpopular. Her negatives will go up again if she's back in the spotlight on her own without Obama's popularity giving her a boost.

that she would return to the Hill in the Senate. Her leadership is very much needed and she has the ability to be the best senator, and one who can serve for a very long time. I would love to see her as the counterpart to Nancy Pelosi (in my dreams, ha!). Honestly, she has the makings of a mover and a shaker in building coalitions which can make great laws for the American people. It's not the I want to see her demoted or kept from the presidency, but this is just my opinion of how her gifts and experiences can be best used to accomplish a better society.

Granted, Obama sets an agenda, but it is up to her to carry it out successfully. And she has, more so than Rice ever did. And as a United States Senator from NY, she had to make plenty of decisions. In Manhattan alone, it has a population more than that of 39 U.S. states. In addition its a very multicultural region, so you have to appeal to many different kinds of people across the board. That's a lot of people agreeing with how she did her job, especially when you consider she won her 2nd election with 67% of the vote through out the state. And what woman can say she won more primaries and delegates than any other female candidate in American history? Only Hillary.

So I don't have a problem with giving her credit & apparently a lot of people don't either. They think very highly of her. http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/david-hill/81379-clintons-best-obama-in-polls

That she has high approvals, is something democrats ought to celebrate, especially in the "age" of fluff with Sarah Palin.

communist like she would be if she was implementing domestic policies.

It IS a dumb poll. By those numbers, it could also be claimed that Hillary is the most popular politician who ever lied about ducking Bosnian sniper fire, or that Hillary is the most popular politician who ever voted for Bush's war.

re bush's "war", he voted for it & Obama had no problem supporting him in his 2004 presidential run, but then we really aren't out of Iraq yet & certainly not out of Afghanistan, that's just "warming up". We passed the 1,000th dead servicemen mark there a few days ago. And Obama had no problem voting to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State, either...despite her hawkish views on Iraq.

And JFK brought over Obama's father in a Kenyan student airlift....except he didn't... there was an airlift, but not funded by any of the Kennedy's. Remember that one? Not exactly the truth, either. Obama was "for" gay marriage before he was against it. He was "for" the public option..once upon a time, too.

Do politicans distort the truth? Definitely, every last one of them. But people still vote for them. This poll is about approval ratings, whether or not certain polticians are held in high regard, depending on what they have accomplished, warts and all. And I have yet to find a poltician without any warts. We look at the good they have and can accomplish & we forgive a lot. ESpecially when the good outweighs the bad.

I'm a bit tougher on politicians, though. My standard for Democrats is basically "would I put up with that shit from a Republican?" If the answer is no, well, then the Democrat in question is reduced to "gets my vote, but only by default." Hillary could run in 2016 and she'd get my vote against any Republican, but I'd be holding my nose as I cast it.

Kerry was a good example. I voted for him in '04 because the alternative was a steamy pile of festering shit, but I had my problems with the guy - the vote for Bush's war being one of them.

Still, as for what Hillary has been doing as SecState, she'll get my vote over Obama if she challenges in 2012. I was hugely pro-Obama and loudly anti-Hillary in the primaries, but now that Obama is in the White House we've gotten things I would never have expected or approved of: a troop surge, a green light for offshore drilling, a Republican health care plan that forces us to enrich insurance companies...I know Hillary is a political whore second only to Arlen Specter and a some Repugs, but I think she'd have done a better job than Obama has so far, especially with the BP spill. People are so wowed by Obama because he's such an upgrade from Bush, but almost anyone would have been. Seems I may have backed the wrong horse.

The fact is that Dr Chu, who Obama put in as the Secretary of Energy is a brilliant Nobel prize winning physicist. He has pulled together a team of some of the brightest people with relevant skills. The problem is that NO ONE knows how to fix the problem. BP had several contingency plans, but they are not working.

It is BP and the other companies that drill the wells that have the equipment needed to deal with it and they supposedly had the ability to contain any problems. It is clear that that is not the case. For the government, there are two issues - how to fix the problem, where they are working with BP, and what to do going forward. They have already created a moratorium on deep water drilling and they will be looking at new rules and procedures.

As to a "Republican health care plan", I seriously doubt that Clinton (or Kerry or Dean or Edwards) would have gotten a significantly different plan through Congress. The fact is that the difference in the 2008 plans were minor and ANY of them would have been taken by the House and Senate and the end result would have been pretty similar.

As to the troop surge, Hillary and Gates were strong advocates of a larger surge. She also won out on Honduras. At first, following people like Kerry and Rep Berman, Obama called the coup a coup - and the NYT noted the significance of the first rw coup not immediately recognized by the US. Hillary assured SFRC Republicans that the US was not acting against the coup leaders.

she could and would have acted more quickly instead of beating the "it's BP's fault" thing to death at every opportunity. We already KNOW it's BP's fault and don't need thrice-hourly reminders. She could also have visited the Gulf faster than Bush did post-Katrina, and could have found something more productive to do than play golf / go to California for fundraisers / pal around with the Duke basketball team. But if Obama's response impresses you, great. If the health care plan impresses you, great. I haven't seen anything Obama has done on the Gulf to be impressive or even noteworthy, and would rather have no health care plan than the piece of trash that was passed.

than the status quo. Two things I saw just this week tells me for two segments of the population, the good things of the bill will be evident soon. Seniors entitled to it are getting checks due to the closing of the donut whole. The other thing may affect many here as young people or parents. I saw the presentation slides my husband was shown on the impact of the new plan on their plan. One major plus is that kids will be covered up to their 26th birthday. Remember in 1993, we got nothing.

As to the Gulf, I think that he blew the PR, but it is clear that they started working on it immediately. What I think they should have done was something that rarely is done. I think Obama should have explained the possible magnitude of the problem and explained the only certain way to handle it was through a successful relief well - and that they required BP to drill 2 to increase the likelihood of success. He could then explain that that would take 3 months and until that scientists from both the industry and government would look at a series of means to slow or stop the flow until it the relief well was available. That would have immediately made people less happy and more concerned about the spill, but it would have lower expectations that the scientists had a way to fix it immediately.

He then needed to get Browner, who did a good job on talk shows, out to explain what they were doing to keep as much oil off the beaches as possible. The third piece would be to speak of using this to increase regulations to avoid it ever happening again.

As to what Hillary would do - we don't know. I could just as easily speak of what Kerry would do. The fact is neither of us know.

I see absolutely NOTHING in that health care bill I like. It's way too expensive, expands coverage too slowly and doesn't cover enough people. Why they couldn't have just fixed Medicare and lowered the age to include everyone instead of rushing through a thousand-page bill which wasn't read by almost all who voted on it is beyond me.

That would be single payer and Bernie Sanders said that it has less than 10 votes. (Kerry, who said he would be for that, also said it doesn't have the votes and there are too many that ideologically are against it and not persuadable.) I agree with you it would be simpler and cheaper.

votes for the crap health bill we got without a bunch of backroom deals which went WAY beyond normal Washington business practices. We get what, 12-15000 new IRS agents to ensure that we're all properly enriching insurance companies? It's an awful bill that was jammed down our throats just so that a claim of a kept promise could be made. Christ, over half the Democrats I know in DC want it repealed. I do, too.

I really had high hopes a couple Januaries ago. Instead, all I got was "Better than Bush," which even Quayle could have been.

She's never in her recent life had an administrative/executive position.

Obama's administrative / executive experience? Hillary may not have been president, but she's spent a hell of a lot longer in the White House than Obama has and had to have picked up something here or there. Besides, I already answered your question hours before you posted it.

experience for being President--it's even sillier now. Especially considering that Hillary Clinton was kept at arm's length from policy making matters during the latter part of the Clinton presidency.

The administrative experience that can be examined to compare Obama and Clinton is running a large campaign. Obama's ran pretty smoothly, Clinton's was an obvious train wreck.

As for things she might have learned--well, there was Waco. She could have picked up something about not taking responsibility, waiting to see how things poll before commenting and leaving your subordinates hanging out there to take the blame.

In fact, Clinton's time in the White House would have likely been a negative in terms of executive experience, because what she seemed to excel at was making enemy lists and going after people that displeased her, until called off by others. That's not an unusual role--for a spouse, who's expected to be protective. But it would have been a harmful attitude to return to the White House with.

These words meant something to Kerry - they are part of what defines a just war. It is absolutely amazing to me that my swing voter Catholic mother heard this and correctly got that Kerry was saying this was an unjust war. She still resents this because of what it says about the United States. Kerry's vote was wrong, but it was not a vote to go to war. It was a vote to give Bush the leverage to say he had the country behind him if he did go to war. It was wrong because it ended up putting his name on the lists giving Bush the authority when Bush ignored all of his own promises on how he would go to war only as a last resort. Kerry was labeled as "anti war" until mid 2003, when the Dean campaign focused entirely on the IWR vote - a vote that Dean did not have to make. (This was fair, even if it exaggerated the difference in their positions - it did not surprise me that by 2006, Kerry was more aggressive on getting out than Dean, who backed the Korb plan was.)

Clinton did not speak up in the run up to the war, other than to say it would happen. In addition, in 2006, Clinton and the people allied with her did not want the Democrats to have a specific alternative to what Bush was doing. They made life hell for Kerry when he and and Feingold introduced Kerry/Feingold. Clinton was with the Republicans in calling it "cut and run". (Obama was not much better.) Then about 7 months later, Obama's plan was a variation on Kerry/Feingold, with the 12 months stretched to 16. A few months later, Clinton's plan also contained similar parts of Kerry/Feingold and she used some of the words Kerry had to defend it. ( ie "that until we set a limit to our involvement, there was no incentive for Iraqi politicians to make the hard political decisions that had to be made.)

You might also notice that on Afghanistan, Clinton pushed for MORE soldiers than Obama eventually ordered, where Kerry was arguing for less - and for being sure that there was adequate Afghan governance and they had the ability to control the area after the coalition "cleared" it - as could be heard at the Marjah hearing, that was not the case and Kerry's concerns, based on Vietnam, were valid. So, on both Iraq and Afghanistan, Clinton was more hawkish than Obama. This is what I thought was the case in 2008 and a large part of why I supported Obama. The only real choice was Clinton or Obama. (I ruled out Edwards in 2003 and my opinion of him was very low in 2005.)

Interesting that you bring up voting for Condi Rice. If you watched her confirmation hearing, Kerry grilled her on many issues and -on Pakistan - caught her in a lie. This led to him succinctly repeating his question at least 3 times forcing her to answer after evasions. In his, in committee reason for voting "no" he spoke of her not be forthcoming or telling the truth in the hearing. I agree that all Democrats should have considered that Kerry, as the nominee, had information they didn't - and his saying she lied to the committee was justification not to vote for her. Here is the roll call - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002

The JFK comment is LESS than the current Blumehthal nonsense, his father DID come over because of a program that JFK signed that helped third world students attend US colleges. That they did not pay for the airlift changes nothing. (In addition, as this was all before Obama was born, he likely was repeating the "truth" he grew up with. In any family, you will find family stories that if thoroughly researched don't pan out.) Here the discrepancies change nothing about who Obama is, what his influences were and what his policies were. Hillary, on the other hand, was an adult when she went to Bosnia. In her case, she bizarrely created a story of being under fire - even though it was jarring to most of us, because if it had happened, it would have been page 1 news.

Obama was not for gay marriage in 2008. His position was pretty much Kerry's 2004 position, though he was less specific than Kerry was about requesting legislation that would give all the federal rights of marriage to those in "state sanctioned civil unions". As to the public option, every candidate has a proposal for every major issue. However, the actual bills will be what is written and passes the Congress. Insisting that only your plan is acceptable didn't work in 1993.

An approval rating asked how they are doing in the job they are in. You can't make the inference that more people prefer Hillary to Obama because she has a higher approval rating as SoS than he does as President. Only a poll that asks who do you like better HRC or Obama would do that.

was a US senator, he too probably would've caved and voted for it. It was easy for him to say it was a dumb war before he had real power, but power corrupts. The Dems would've talked him into voting for it more than likely.

I told her that Barack would have voted for it too if he had been a Senator like Hillary was.


My cousin was FURIOUS.


Now she agrees with me.



She (my cousin) is not dumb anymore.


Barack caves on everything now that he is on record and has power.

Kerry, CLinton and BIden.

I'm not delusional. Hillary would have played the same game if the situation had been reversed.


Barack played it perfectly (Hillary would have done the same). That's all I ask for people to realize.

He did it as a US Senate candidate when it was still politically risky to be against the war. No, they did not play the same game. Just because Hillary is a spineless coward with her finger to the wind, doesn't mean that all politicians are.

a warmonger like no other as he pushes our country further and further into debt by the billions to pay for it.

Obama is showing the same courage as President that he showed when he spoke at an anti-war rally before the vote happened and even before Howard Dean decided to be against it.

she would've been terrific.

She was better suited and more qualified for the job. The nation in these times didn't need an overly conciliatory and conflict averse leader who's more interested in "building consensus with Republicans and abusive corporations than he is fighting for the peoples' business.

It was an historic opportunity to make lasting structural changes, while relegating Republicans to the fringe for a generation- and it's largely been squandered.

Bullshit.

Someone able to harness the populist anger and resentment that like or no- drives public policy in the United States.

And someone who wouldn't coddle Republicans- but take it to 'em and keep them on the fringe.

Hillary was better suited to do that.

Evidently, Obama did put up a better fight.

but that wasn't what I was responding to in the first post above.

And I thought you went after Obama for his corporate leanings all the time? Hillary has even more of that tendency. And the whole Iran thing...

I do like Hillary, now. She is fine where she is, as Sec of State.

They both had unfortunate corporate leanings, based on their records- though I wouldn't say Hillary's was worse.

Made my (very limited) choice based on what I thought at the time- and it was indeed a bit of a gamble on what someone might be once they were in power- as opposed to what they'd always been.

If you go back and look at my posts from early on in his Senate career- before he announced he would run for president (and after) I pegged Obama as someone who'd go along to get along, and characterized some of his actions as meant to ingratiate himself with the so called "centrist" (center right) leadership- on both sides of the aisle.

I rather hoped that this would change in response to the exigencies of the times- but, as sometimes happens, hope can be misplaced.

She went from the fiesty First Lady (the vast right wing conspiracy) to being buddies with them in the Senate. Face it, the race came down to two very moderate Dems. No one else had the charisma to make it there.

Mine is that Hillary wouldn't (among other things):

A. Have some need to be liked by- or conciliate with "everyone in the room;" and

B. Wouldn't have let the likes of Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson make her look bewilderingly impotent.

Tragedies are often like that- the very quality that brought a leader to power is also the hamartia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia

As to not "coddling" Republicans, the fact is that we need 60 votes in the Senate for many things, which means that there has to be an effort to pull some to agree with each piece of legislation.

You might want to look back at Clinton's record in the Senate - she was a centrist Democrat. Obama was to her left - and Kerry to his left.

...totally fucking as disconnected from reality as it gets.

and what about some who are forever loved in their own states? (Tom Osborne?)

She would have been a terrific president. I still think that it should have been Hillary first and then Obama. Experience DOES matter in life. We could have had someone who had served 8 years at each end of Pennsylvania Avenue. She knows how the WH operates and how to get around the Congress critters. I think that she would have been a very effective president. Maybe not as LW as some might have wished, but a good solid president who wouldn't take B.S. from no one.

What a chance we missed......

:(

I don't recall seeing her name in any decision making position on any ballot that I cast.

she has been one of the great Secretary of States.
she is so good in this role and such a natural. And she postively glows in the role.

Seriously, I've never seen her look so happy in all of her years of public life.

...........as always.