Hillary’s Not Invincible
By Richard H Collins Posted in Archived — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The chinks in Hillary Clinton’s once impenetrable armor have been found. Hillary’s opponents have been able to link her stand – or lack thereof – on issues to reinforce voter’s doubts about her honesty and electability. Doubts about her positions on Iraq and Iran and her inability to provide straightforward answers on issues such as social security, access to her White House records, and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants have led to what seems like her first losing media cycle of the campaign. Even her husband – usually a media darling – seemed to stumble as he attempted to defend his wife from ramped up criticism.
While there are questions about the impact of Hillary’s performance on voters, what is clear is that the media has abandoned the invincibility story line and her opponents are trying to take advantage.
Some polls do show her lead over Barack Obama shrinking. A CNN poll had her lead down from 30% to 17% while a Washington Post/ABC poll shrank from 33% to 23%. And in the crucial state of Iowa a recent Zogby poll has her clinging to a 28 to 25 lead (down from 30 – 19) while Rasmussen saw her New Hampshire lead shrink to its lowest level this year
Whatever her national numbers, a loss in Iowa or even a narrow victory in New Hampshire would be a huge setback for the candidate perceived as the presumed nominee. Losing the expectations game can have enormous consequences.
Read on . . .
What should also concern Hillary are voter’s negative perceptions of her. Polls continue to show her with negatives in the mid to high forties; higher than any of her rivals. Specifically, the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 43% of voters had a negative perception of her honesty. This seems to indicate that the criticisms are having an effect
Fueling these doubts are questions about her character and her electability and these are the points her opponents are driving home. Organizations like Stop Her Now have been raising the issue of access to White House documents for months, but it was only after the debate that it became an issue in the campaign. After Tim Russert asked Hillary about the issue, Obama went on record as finding her answers “a problem” and “disingenuous” thus kicking off another round of media stories questioning why the documents were being held until after the election.
Hillary’s need to placate the liberal base has also begun to trip her up. In questions on giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants Hillary faced a choice between a simple answer and offending key voters. Yes would have left her vulnerable since as much as 77% of the public are opposed to the idea. No, however, would have put her at odds with the liberal Democratic base that supports unrestricted immigration and benefits for illegals.
Hillary’s solution was to straddle and hedge, but she couldn’t pull it off. Obama and Edwards quickly jumped in to decry her evasive and slippery answers. Following the debate Edwards used Hillary’s awkward and confusing answers to create a devastating ad that was quickly linked across the Internet and seemed to breathe new life into his campaign. Soon even Hillary had to admit the debate wasn’t her “best performance.”
These weaknesses have not only given her primary opponents new life, but have exposed liabilities for the general election. Despite a sizable advantage for Democrats in generic ballot polling, Hillary is virtually tied with GOP candidates Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
What her recent stumbles reveal is that Hillary is vulnerable. She is attempting a precarious balancing act. She needs to attract and hold the support of liberals while at the same time leaving room to move to the center. But this requires a finesse that Hillary, unlike her husband, lacks. Every time she tries to avoid being pinned down on difficult issues like social security, immigration, and taxes she highlights doubts about her honesty and voter’s trust. Doubts her opponents are sure to reinforce.
And the more these attacks tarnish Hillary’s inevitability the more doubts are raised about her electability. During the debate Senator Chris Dodd spoke openly about Hillary’s un-electability and continues to discuss it on the campaign trail. The more these doubts are discussed the more chance they have to grow.
The only way to stop Hillary is to continue to apply the pressure and keep the focus on Hillary’s weaknesses. Hillary is a committed and experienced campaigner with millions of dollars on hand; she won’t go down without a fight.
But the last few weeks have shown that she is anything but invincible.
Richard H. Collins is the founder of StopHerNow.com, a website dedicated to educating the public about Hillary Clinton’s liberal record.
....and then for her to get slaughtered in the general. Hildebeast is our best shot - we need her to win the nomination.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
The Clinton Machine is very formidable, and when asked whether or not I would like another Clinton on the Ballot I would say "no" right off the bat.
However, due to candidates like Obama, who has the ability to create and motivate a large movement of young and indepentent voters to donate, volunteer and vote; I think you're right our best shot is against Hillary.
Right now, Independent voters in the general election, have every reason to vote against the Republican Nominee:
*Economic fears (not that it's bad, the fear that it could get bad: E.G. Bernanke),
*The Iraq War (good news isn't getting to the media, unless there's a reduction in troops to highlight "progress" there will continue to be none),
*The "Bush" Factor (he's an idiot, just like Republicans, he's ideological and has "done nothing for you"),
*Education (Everyone: liberals/conservatives hate No Child Left Behind: liberals=unfunded[lie], conservatives=gov't expansion), and
*Health Care(people are growing fat and want someone else to do something about it: Republicans made them fat [a silly example that could be true]).
Hillary has the exact same things going against her for the most part, and if she's the Democratic Nominee, then the Republicans will have, in a way, leveled the playing field for their nominee to reach out to those Independents and "earn their vote".
Giuliani isn't the only Republican Presidential Candidate. Rasmussen just put out that Mike Huckabee is within the margin of error now as well (within 3 points Nationally).
The Republican Party Primaries ought not be solely about "I'm the best to beat Hillary" and why she's terrible. But also about how they'll be able to do so, focusing on their Record of Accomplishment (which is great, because all of our candidates have substantial records), Positions on the Major Issues, Ideas/Plans for future accomplishment, and their Ability to Connect with not just the Republican Base, but also Independent "split-ticket" voters.
I just want to know the candidate I'm going to support, supports my issues as well. I busted my butt for Bush and plan to do so in 2008 for the Republican Nominee as well.
I feel we need serious reform in this country: size of the federal gov't needs to be reduced, our tax structure screams corruption on both the Gov't (censorship/audits of those trying to do right) side and the Individual (use as many loop-holes as possible) side. Lastly, we need an advocate who will stand up and defend traditional American Values, which inspire all of us.
How can that dialogue with the voters/volunteers (me) and our candidates' exist if the election is all about Hillary? Not to mention that this type of "divisive" politics is spreading to our own party as well: pitting Libertarians, Fiscal and Social Conservatives (of which I feel am "at home" with each group) against each other.
No fear in her not being nominated. The machine and missplaced Clinton nostaliga will push her through no matter how damaged she becomes. I think the more important question is who are we going to pick.
Considering even Huckabee is statistically tied with her we've got the opportunity to pick a candidate without being that concerned with electibility. I'm a Fred guy, so consider me biased, but I'm praying that this time we pick a President as well as a leader of a conservative movement. Every time Bush moderated I cringed, felt betrayed, and then blamed myself. I should have know that the Bushes are new world order big government guys, but I fell for the compassionate conservative crap.
I'm voting based on who I think will GOVERN most conservatively. Frederlism and all that lol. For what it's worth here's my list Fred, Duncan Hunter(I know no chance), Mitt, McCain, Huckabee, Rudy.
"Leader of the Conservative Moment"... exactly
Leader meaning: Articulate Advocate, Driven by Principles, Proven Accomplishment and "friend". Someone who can rally the base and enlarge its numbers, motivating us to work hours on end as volunteers, etc.
Not sure that person is Fred though... I am still keeping an open eye though. Right now I don't see him being able to substantially motivate Caucus-Goers in Iowa (Mike and Mitt have that, and Guiliani/McCain are right behind). A 5th place finish there will devastate his campaign. That, combined with criticism of his campaign tactics in New Hampshire, the influence of Independent voters and a poor performance in Iowa will cripple his candidacy going into South Carolina.
In terms of rising stock: I'm keeping my options open with respect to Mike Huckabee. His speeches speak to the soul (after all, he's experienced with that ;-) ) and have motivated non-establishment individuals to vote for him at the straw poll and at the Values Voters Conference in droves. In terms of his governance I think he did a great job especially with regard to infrastructure development (a critical issue for states: which my Governor keeps screwing up), keeping voters informed (open Government) and handling of Katrina refugees. Plus, he's out there genuinely debating issues, and coming up with new ideas/solutions (very Newtish), while staying true to conservative principles.
Huck seems to have Soc Con values down. Of course the Fiscal Cons have some seemingly valid beefs. Then again it could be just RINO fears of a man with principles. Mitt could convice me, but I need some federalism from the man.
My issue priority list goes something like this: National Security/Immigration, Federalism/States Rights, and Taxes.
I'm totally convinced on the federalism front. I want the feds to lay off darn near everything. In fact the only thing I want the feds to do is prevent any state from telling another state what to do. Federalizing issues has just diffused individual power and let the 9 kings decree what we may do. Social cons should refuse to play the S-P's game and change the subject. We will save more babies if South Carolina makes up their own laws on abortion, than if we try to force California to ban it via the Supreme Court.
I to this day believe that if the feds were focused solely on their Constitutionally mandated responsibilies 9/11 would not have happened. Getting the feds involved in abortion, education, marriage, prayer in schools, ect. ect. has just resulted in vote buying and a loss of focus on their 1st responsibility. Keeping America Safe.
Where was Bush on 9/11? Pandering in a school house being democrat lite on the federalization of education. Well that was kinda mean, but I'm not convinced its inaccurate so I'll leave it. I'm not saying it was his fault. It's just that anything that detracts from time and focus on national security, detracts from time and focus on national security.
Anyway sorry for the rambling rant.
I could be sold on Huck. Let's see how into federalism he is.
And the sharks are gathering. As much as the media adores Bill, I don't believe they have any such reverence for Hillary. Oh, they'll still prop her up if she falls behind - after all, she has a (D) after her name, so she MUST be elected, but that doesn't mean they won't enjoy taking her down a peg.
Cheers,
Scott in Indy
- Hillary’s Not Invincible
This is slightly off-topic for this thread, but certainly not for discussing Democrats or Clintons in general.
This has to do with how human brains work, and why headlines like "Hillary's Not Invincible" should be avoided. It turns out that in experiments, human memories were found to lose the "not" part of statements like that. If people read a headline like, "Smith Not Guilty of Murder," the only thing that most people will remember about Smith three weeks later is that he had something to do with a murder.
If people keep tossing "Hillary" and "invincible" near each other in sentences, Hillary will come to be viewed as invincible. Putting "not" in there does no good. It appears that human brains store statements like that as declaratives, i.e. "Hillary is invincible" and then tag the item as being true or false. So "Hillary is not invincible" gets stored as "Hillary is invincible... not". Trouble is, over time the 'not' tags fall off and the only thing left is the declarative.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Hillary's husband did Not sexually abuse women.
Hillary is Not a communist nor is she receiving money from Red China.
This is fun.
Hillary is Not connected to the death of former supporters.
Anyone else want to try? It really is fun in a frighting sort of way.
--Nancy is not the stupidest Speaker EVER.
--Janet Reno was not an unspeakably incompetent boob.
--Sid Blumenthal is not the biggest jerk in DC.
--Gregoire did not cheat Rossi out of the governorship.
--HWMNBN is not Denny Kucinich's long-lost twin brother.
--Hillary is not a dour old shrill screecher.
--Hillary is not pathologically dishonest.
--Harry Reid is not a toady for dKos.
Ah, well I can't do any more. Too weird an exercise...
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Hillary is not a deceitful shrew
Kucinich is not from the Alpha Centauri system
Barbara Boxer is not the dumbest person in the history of Congress
John Kerry did not call his fellow troops war criminals
Bill Clinton is not a whoremonger
Joe Biden is not a bloviating gasbag
This does feel weird.
She has the money, she has the organization and she has the name recognition. And her opponents are a bunch of incompetents. They may have ganged up on her in the last debate, but it was pretty mild criticism of her, especially compared to what the GOP does to her in their debates.
That being said, she is the most electable Democrat running. I'd much rather face 2-Americas/2-faced John Edwards or Obama. Neither one has the resume of Rudy, Mitt, Fred, McCain or Huck. They're mere one-term senators. Hill may not have done anything in her life, but she's done a lot more than either of them.
Again, neither one has the organization that Hillary does nor the name recognition. They're negatives may not be as high as hers, but neither one comes across as presidential. To beat her, they're gonna have to go so far to the left that they'd fall off the cliff. They wouldn't be electable after that.
Also, similar to Hillary, they have no executive experience (arguably even less than she does, if you count her time as first lady). Rudy, Mitt and Huck do. No one without executive experience in public office (including VP experience) has won the presidency since 1960. Voters value executive experience. That's not gonna change now.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.
but it wasn't enough.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.
But do we want her defeated for the nomination?
I'm delighted to see her stumble but...