It's not crying unless there's snot.

[blueyedbaby]

As misogynistic as it is, as dumb as it is, as much of an inaccurate reading and waste of time as it is, I absolutely LOVE that Hillary getting a little choked up (note: her voice cracked; she was not crying) is turning out to be one of these iconic campaign moments, on par with (for better or worse) the Checkers speech and Howard Dean's 2004 "

Comments

[senadeth]

How is Clinton more progressive than Obama? Obama is rated higher on the environment by the League of Conservation Voters and he's consistently against the war. (Clinton's vote for the war - and Edwards', and Kerry's - were driven mainly by public opinion leading up to an election year. I was a big supporter of Kerry-Edwards but I think they all deserve blame for what happened.) I'll give you that Clinton's health care plan is more ambitious, but I'm swayed by Obama's argument that costs should be lowered before a mandate is imposed to buy coverage that not everyone can afford.

Obama's base would generally not shift to Clinton. For every volunteer I've met on the Obama campaign who likes her, I've met two who don't. Obama is getting crossover support from independents and Republicans because of his conciliatory nature and his refusal to go negative or modify his positions to reflect public opinion. These are all areas where Obama could draw contrast with Clinton, but that would generally mean going negative which would really defeat the purpose.

[lifeofbai]

How is Hillary not "consistently against the war"? She voted against the surge and voted in favor of a spending bill that required Bush to create a timetable for withdrawal. How are these views not in line with the mainstream views of the Democratic party when she supports withdrawal of troops and does not support escalation of the war? True, she was not against the war from its inception, but she has a plan to get us out of Iraq now. Another issue she is given grief for is her vote to renew the PATRIOT Act, but she also voted for amendments that show her support of civil liberties: 1) voted "yes" on preserving habeas corpus for detainees, 2) voted "yes" on an amendment requiring the CIA to report on the treatment of detainees (so that torture would not be used), and 3) voted "yes" on a provision to eliminate warrantless wiretaping. Finally, Hillary is stronger on immigration and fiscal matters than Obama, IMO.

In response to your comment about health care, I direct you to Paul Krugman's November 30 column in the NYT.

Re: your second point. Are you serious? Most of the Obama constituents would not vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination if Edwards or Clinton were to win? There may be some Independents who would not vote for Hillary, but I find it hard to believe that most Obama supporters (who are Democrats or lean Democrat) would not proceed to vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.

[cos]

Hillary voted for the war to begin with. She did not really criticise it for a good long time. She still resists saying it was a mistake, or that she shouldn't have voted for it. She doesn't seem to want to say openly what a disaster it really is, and is hedging her comments to try to appeal to all sides and sound reasonable. Hillary on the war is kind of like a horoscope: Whoever you are, you can read it such that it appeals to you.

[lifeofbai]

Over 2/3 of the country supported the war at the time based on the premise that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Congress was briefed on this matter and told there was definitive evidence on this. Almost every leader in the developed world (particularly those in the G8 nations) similarly believed that Iraq had WMDs. This doesn't excuse the fact that Congress voted to authorize the use of force or that practically no one read the National Intelligence Estimate, but it does not seem as though this was a completely arbitrary, unreasoned decision to make.

She cannot afford to disavow her past actions because then she will be pinned as a "flip-flopper," and this will be just more fodder for the Republican attack machine. All that matters is that she is speaking out against the war now, and her actions show she is clearly against escalating the war and favors an exit strategy. Isn't that what Democrats as a whole want? Well, judging from her actions, I would say she will make accomplishing this end goal a priority.

- Ray

[cos]

Point 1: A lot of people opposed the war at the time, including a majority of those who were following it closely and familiar with the issue and really cared. This is why the few members of Congress who voted against it all got boosts in the polls in 2002, contrary to the media narrative that voting against the war would lose you votes. A majority of Democrats in Congress also opposed the war, both in the House and the Senate. Clinton was wrong, and disastrously so, along with the Democratic leadership of the time. Whatever her excuses, the fact remains that this is a big difference between her and Obama: she was wrong and contributed to the biggest mistake this country has made in our lifetimes, and he saw through it and was right about it at the time.

Point 2: Failing to disavow his past action was a big part of why Kerry lost in 2004. He was pinned as a flip-flopper anyway, but if he'd come out and said "I'm sorry, that vote was a mistake" (as he as done since) it wouldn't have affected that narrative but it would have brought more people to his side (those people who initially supported the war and were beginning to realize that was a mistake and could have seen him as being on the same path they were) and he would've had a clearer way to draw a contrast between himself and Bush. Now, Edwards has clearly said that his vote for the war was a mistake and apologized for it. There is absolutely no shred of "flip-flopper" narrative about Edwards in any campaign coverage or in voters' minds because of it. Clinton can definitely afford to do the same.

Point 3: She isn't really speaking out against the war, she's just trying to sound like she is. As I said in an earlier comment, what Clinton says about the war is like a horoscope: there's something in it for everyone who wants to see what they want to see in it. I have little faith in her "exit strategy", except that it'll be much much better than anything any of the Republicans would come up with. But it'll be frustrating and not as good as she could do.

[lifeofbai]

I will grant that Obama had more prescience on this matter, but Clinton has already stated that if she had known that Iraq did not have WMDs at the time, she would not have voted to authorize the war. You can interpret her actions whatever way you want, but she did submit a bill in the Senate to block sending more troops to Iraq, she did vote to create time tables for withdrawal from Iraq, and she did vote against the 2007 surge. It seems as though many of her detractors are just angry at her for refusing to apologize for her vote or to disavow her earlier comments, but I don't see what good that would accomplish for her. I disagree with you that disavowing her past actions would help her in any way, other than to appease a few people (and truth be told, said individuals probably would not be at all appeased because they already hold the fact that she even voted for the war to begin with against her).

Moreover, I don't see why this an apology is so necessary when the focus should be on getting out of Iraq and helping to ensure stability in the country. Hillary has demonstrated her commitment to getting out of Iraq as quickly and as realistically as possible, and her views are completely in line with the mainstream Democratic party's.

And as Lindsay stated, she polls pretty evenly with Obama amongst Independents. Sure, Obama gets more "likability" points, but Hillary also fares better than Obama when people are polled about experience and about who would be the better candidate to address health care, national security, et al.

- Ray

[cos]

It sounds like, much as you don't mind Hillary's position and record on the war, you do seem to recognize that there's a difference between her and Obama on this issue and that some people see that difference as being important. That's the point I was trying to make.

I didn't say that an apology is necessary. You said an apology would be harmful, and that is wrong.

I do not think she has demonstrated her committment to getting out of Iraq as quickly and realistically as possible, unless you allow very wide latitude in the definition of "realistic". I think she does want, in general, to get out of Iraq (which is good), and that if Congress actually tried to get us out she might not stop it (which is also good). I also think she tries to vote "right" on symbolically important votes so that people who want to believe that she will try to get us out of Iraq can believe it, but doesn't actually do what she can in Congress to make it happen.

I don't care about polls among independents, or general election polls in general, at all. At this stage, "who would you vote for in [matchup X]?" results mean pretty close to nothing and are best ignored.

[lifeofbai]

The difference between her and Obama is moot when it comes to dealing with the current situation in the War in Iraq. I caren't about their past records (and it's impossible to say how Obama would have voted in 2003 given that he was not in the Senate at the time), because their plans to deal with the situation currently are both similar. Both have proposed a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq with a set timetable and deadline in mind. They have both also emphasized creating regional stability through diplomacy and aid (in the forms of money and security). And if you look at their most recent records, they both are similar too. Barrack Obama proposed legislation to start pulling out troops last January, and Hillary similarly submitted a bill to oppose the surge and to block sending more troops.

I also did not say that you had said an apology was necessary; it's just that a quip that many have with Hillary is that she won't apologize. As she has stated verbatim: "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from. But for me, the most important thing now is trying to end this war." Her priorities are in the right place, and her actions show this.

My comment about independents at poll was in response to your comment below: "The former group would support Hillary in a general election if she were the nominee; the latter, not necessarily." She has a great deal of appeal amongst Independents just as Obama does.
- Ray

independents

[cos]

Oh, in that case, I don't think you really addressed my comment. I maintain that those polls mean nothing. I also stand by my statement that those people who are both a) currently supporting Obama and b) not Democrats or solidly Democratic-leaning voters, will not necessarily back Hillary in the general election if she is the Democratic nominee. But there's no way I can think of to construct a poll to answer that question, it's just a statement I'm making based on my experience in campaigns. (Obviously, I'm not part of that set. I am a Democrat, and will support Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee)

Re: independents

[lifeofbai]

I apologize, I did not read your comment correctly. I guess I didn't really respond to your point, but I'm also curious as to whether there is conclusive evidence to show that Independents who support Obama would not support Hillary if she were the Democratic candidate in the general election. The majority of Obama supporters are liberal or moderate, so I would think that these individuals would be more inclined to support Hillary over a Republican candidate. I can't say for a fact because I have not seen any polls to show who Obama supporters would vote for if they had to choose someone other than Obama, but this seems to be the scenario. Maybe I'm completely wrong.
- Ray

Re: independents

[cos]

I don't know that "the majority of Obama supporters are liberal or moderate" is necessarily true if you disregard the Obama supporters who are Democrats. Hillary is an ideologically-indentified figure much more than Obama is. To people who pay a lot of attention, it's clear that Obama *is* liberal, himself, but his message and public image are not as ideologically identified and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of his non-Democratic supporters are somewhat conservative too. Furthermore, it's not clear to me that moderates who aren't Democrats and who aren't currently supporting Hillary already, would tend to support her in a Hillary vs. McCain matchup, for example. I definitely know a lot of people who are considering Obama and McCain as possible choices to support, for example, but don't support Hillary.

Re: independents

[cos]

Take a look at this post for some good examples. She surveyed a number of people she knows for their opinions of each candidate. Of the people she surveyed, I think I'm the only strong Democrat, but several of them are very liberal, some are Republicans, some Libertarians, some moderats, and they're in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. She included where each person went to college (she went to Dartmouth, so a lot of them are also Dartmouth alumni) but you'll note that the list includes a few who didn't attend college.

You'll notice that almost everyone there has negative opinions of Hillary. Only one person has clearly positive comments, and even that person is somewhat ambivalent.

Now, look at the Obama section: most people's comments tend positive, though a few are negative.

Next, follow each person who made positive comments about Obama, through the Republican section. You'll notice that a good number of them like one or more of the Republican candidates.

Re: independents

[lifeofbai]

Thanks for the link. It is interesting to read these opinions, but I don't think that this survey is an accurate representation of America as a whole. Clinton has a far higher favorability rating amongst those surveyed in most random samples of voters; even in polls conducted by FOX News, which have obvious biases, over 50 percent of respondents have viewed her favorably. And amongst traditionally conservative bases of support, she doesn't do that bad either.

I won't argue that there is a more divisive view of Obama, because based on public opinion data, this is simply not true. However, I don't think that Hillary is so polarizing that she would not be able to win the GE. When matched up with the Republican candidates in all theoretical match-ups, she gives them all a good run for their money.

- Ray

Re: independents

[cos]

My point is simply what I said originally: Of Obama's supporters who are not Democrats, it is not necessarily true that most of them would support Hillary if she were the nominee. I linked to that page because it showed examples of a lot of such people.

Re: independents

[lifeofbai]

But the page you linked me to was not just a survey amongst Obama supporters or Independents. Therefore, I am not sure how well it illustrates your point that Independents who support Obama would not necessarily vote for Hillary. I thought that because you linked me to a page of opinions from a wide range of individuals, you were trying to illustrate that many people (regardless of ideology) have a negative view of Hillary but a positive view of Obama. I am using national polling data to counter this, because it demonstrates that Hillary is viewed very favorably as well not just amongst Democrats but amongst those who do not identify as Democrat. Perhaps I was just not understanding what you were trying to get at with this link to this survey.

Also, where are you getting this notion that these polls are worthless? You pointed me to a page that had a survey of different responses to the candidates as evidence of your point, yet you dismiss national polls and surveys as worthless. Why?

- Ray

Re: independents

[cos]

I wanted to show you examples of the sorts of people who might be supporting Obama but aren't really Democratic-leaning or likely Hillary supporters, because seeing some actual examples and what they think can help make it feel more real. I am *not* even mildly suggesting that that page was any sort of statistically significant representation of percentages of the population, nor that it would predict who will win.

As for why the polls are completely worthless, read my much longer comments to Lindsay below, where I explained some of the main reasons.