With Approval Ratings In The 60s, Hillary Clinton Is Our Most Popular Living Politician.
Every time I hear this song from "Wicked," I picture Maureen Dowd lecturing Hillary Clinton what she should do to be popular.
As someone who backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries, I'd like to remind readers of some of the reasons progressive activists gave as "why we simply can't have Hillary as President."
"Everyone hates her." (That's probably why she's so popular.)
"She has no foreign policy experience." (I suppose that's why Obama named her Secretary of State.)
"She's a corporatist from the DLC wing of the party." (Hmm, I'd call that one a wash, considering we instead elected the man who hired Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.)
"The right wing will go after her, and the country can't take another eight years of that." (This is the one that really makes me laugh. When will Democrats learn it simply doesn't matter who we nominate? Anyone we support will get the same treatment.)
"We can't have Bill Clinton hanging around, getting into trouble." (You mean, like when Rahm asked him to talk to Joe Sestak?)
Look, I wanted Hillary Clinton because I figured she would be a lot more liberal on domestic policies, and I knew we were headed into an economic crash. It was pure self-interest. The tradeoff is, she's usually an AIPAC rubberstamp and a war hawk. As much as that disgusts me, I was willing to take that trade. But really, Obama hasn't been much better, has he?
The fact is, we'll probably never know what President Hillary Clinton would have done. Oh well, at least she's popular!
Chris Bowers has the scoop:
Here is a weekend factoid for you: among all living politicians in the United States who have ever held elected office, Hillary Clinton [is] 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.
http://jgrab.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/bill...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
When I first clickedd on this comment page I got a big red page saying the C&L is an unsafe website. I hope someone at C&L will look into this.
Notice how they lose their lie infested minds when they come here.
you might have to think! clearly, that's not good for your brain. :)
. . . when going to C&L. I'm running avast! free version. The logged culprit was ad.yieldmanager.com.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
be the same as what I got. If I see it again I will try to copy the web link.
just a thought...
IMO Susie's best post ever.
I supported Hillary too and IMO there was so much anti-Clinton hate ... well never mind.
Hillary is doing a great job. Fair to say, being President is a more difficult job.
aptitude for having her own portfolio..She has excellent envoys doing good work..that she resisted but Obama put in! Have not seen any progress that she is personally reponsible for. Would like to see an example!
The airbrushed picture is not helpful--she is a mature woman---not a bean brain that needs that!
For the very reasons you cite. But I wasn't thrilled with Obama's Senate record, either -- and he seemed to be the pet candidate of Wall Street, which made me wary. (I think my fears have been validated.)
Re: flag burning. Because my own archives are still inaccessible after a site migration, I can't find the article I wrote and can't recall the details, but know that it was not anywhere near as bad as it sounded when I first heard of it. I remember researching it at the time and being surprised by what I found -- but damned if I can find it now. I think it had something to do with trying to head off the Republicans on a constitutional amendment.
The Iraq war vote? We can probably pin that one on Bill. If you read "A Woman in Charge", Carl Bernstein's comprehensive Hillary Clinton biography, Bill Clinton and someone else (I vaguely recall it was a White House advisor, but can't remember who) urged her to support it. Hillary was agonizing over the vote, but Bill assured her that Bush only wanted the authority to do it, and would use it as a last resort. (I think Bill - and the rest of us - have wised up since then.)
The Iran resolution? I agree. As I said, she's a hawk. But with Edwards out of the picture, she was the only one still standing who was talking about the working class and the poor. That will get my vote every single time.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
She wouldn't be so popular. Her numbers would be close too if not the same as Obama's. That's just the way it is. The Reich Wing would have done the same to her as it's done to Obama.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I'm not so sure. I thing Hillary would of got the Public Option. She was a MUCH more vocal supporter of it during the campaign. Obama was always luke-warm about it at best. Nor could i imagine Hillary taking her entire electoral victory and handing it over to Max Baucus. I don't think August would of happened with Hillary in charge, she'd either of insisted they stay in session, or she would of proceeded without finance, but either way it would of been done. She certainly would know the value of NOT letting it drag out.
Plus, i think the stimulus under Hillary would of been FAR larger. We'd be feeling the effects.
"...especially "great communicators", did they have brains or knowledge don't make me laugh...please..they were popular"
still dead. really.
I saw him at the bar the other night with Elvis.
Biden will drop out as VP and Hillary will run with Obama in 2012. At least I hope so.
.
:)
That Sarah Palin is everything they tried to crucify Hillary for in the 90's, but also stupid. Too.
falsely accuse the other side of what applies to yours.
. . . Colin Powell, Michelle Obama and Gen. Petraeus. Numbers for all four might change quite a bit with a run for office.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
over the top in the primaries, was the african american vote in the southern states. i doubt 50% of those that voted for him could articulate any of his policy positions, but he was "one of us". and that's ok. i seriously doubt 50% of irish/catholic americans could have told you jack kennedy's policy positions in 1960 either, but he was "one of us". it's a time honored tradition in american politics.
clearly, clinton was the more seasoned and accomplished of the two, and if you actually heard her speak, you know why she and bill make such an outstanding pair: she exudes empathy, understanding and toughness. i loved her from the 92 election.
that said, don't be misled, she (and bill) are progressives in the jack kennedy mold, which is actually conservative "lite". but, i could live with that.
Hillary's agenda was even more liberal than Obama's. This was clear during the primary. The forces aligned against Obama would have been equally so, if not more, against Hillary.
It has nothing to do with seasoning either, because Hillary demonstrated during the primary that both she and her team were capable of political missteps. It probably wouldn't have been much different in the WH.
...New Hampshire, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Utah...Nebraska, Washington and Maine...Wisconsin and Democrats Abroad...Wyoming and Montana...All states without a lot of African-Americans, all went to Obama in the primaries.
And what you said right there in the first paragraph comes across as kinda racist. I can go grab quotes from quite a few
PUMAscommenters at this site- most of them NOT African-Americans- who have claimed they voted for Obama because of his campaign positions on single payer health care and Afghanistan, their claims being that he supported single payer and withdrawal from Afghanistan.Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
What about VA Andy? I'm guessing there is a chance that "cpinva" might translate into cp-in-va?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
...because they do have large African-American populations, my point being that Obama, in the primaries, did quite well in states with below-average to practically non-existent African-American populations.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
The only reason that Hillary has such high approval ratings is because she is not the President.
Not that she wouldn't be competent at it, but as we have seen with Obama, the attrition of one's approval rating is assured by the realities
of the office but also by the non-stop assault on anyone considered a "liberal".
Believe me, Limbaugh and Fox wouldn't have been any kinder on Pres. Hillary than it has been on President Obama.
But Clinton has over a decade of experience on how to deal with the right wing attack machine. Obama and his "reaching across the aisle" is IMO what we didn't need.
Perhaps we should define "competent," here.
If I weren't saving my Hillary t-shirt for future female descendants, I'd put it on today. It says:
"For everyone who's ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for YOU!"
Guess it's time to write another check to help retire her debt.
Hillary was wise to have taken this office and not VP.
As we saw with Colin Powell (and others), this is a win-win office politically. You have the potential for a lot of media exposure but
also are insulated from a lot of the daily dirt that being in the WH itself attracts.
It's the perfect position if you want to use it as a catapault for running for President.
SoS can't be that perfect of a position to use as a catapault for the Presidency ... the last SoS that became President was James Buchanan, more than 150 years ago.
A serving Senator hadn't been elected to the Presidency since 1960 (and a former Senator since '72) when Obama and Clinton ran in '08, and there have been a hell of a lot more Senators who have sought the office than SOSs. So, statistaically...
And if you think about it, only two serving Senators- Harding and Kennedy- were elevated to the Presidency in the 20th century.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
She said she won't run, period.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
She may change her mind. But she did sound pretty definate. 6 1/2 years is a long time for her to re-consider. I hope she does. We need to have a Democrat in office for at least 8 more years to push the court back to the middle (i won't even dream of it going left again).
I didn't want Hillary to win because I thought she would be a DLC clone, "I hate liberals, too" Dem. That fear was not irrational. Her Senate record was remarkably piss poor, and most of her accomplishments were right wing (co-sponsoring a flag burning bill, voting for the Iraq war, and for the Iran resolution). Her husband was the founder of the DLC for crying out loud. Her husband even said John McCain would make a fine president (forgetting that if his wife won the nomination, she would have to answer that idiotic statement).
It was a shitty cynical manipulation, meant to pretend that we were already into the Presidential election..."Either me or the old man".
Hillary is an excellent Secretary of State. But don't revise and mislead Ms. Madrak...she lost in 2008 to a better overall candidate, not because we hated her.
For the very reasons you cite. But I wasn't thrilled with Obama's Senate record, either -- and he seemed to be the pet candidate of Wall Street, which made me wary. (I think my fears have been validated.)
Re: flag burning. Because my own archives are still inaccessible after a site migration, I can't find the article I wrote and can't recall the details, but know that it was not anywhere near as bad as it sounded when I first heard of it. I remember researching it at the time and being surprised by what I found -- but damned if I can find it now. I think it had something to do with trying to head off the Republicans on a constitutional amendment.
The Iraq war vote? We can probably pin that one on Bill. If you read "A Woman in Charge", Carl Bernstein's comprehensive Hillary Clinton biography, Bill Clinton and someone else (I vaguely recall it was a White House advisor, but can't remember who) urged her to support it. Hillary was agonizing over the vote, but Bill assured her that Bush only wanted the authority to do it, and would use it as a last resort. (I think Bill - and the rest of us - have wised up since then.)
The Iran resolution? I agree. As I said, she's a hawk. But with Edwards out of the picture, she was the only one still standing who was talking about the working class and the poor. That will get my vote every single time.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
and ties to PNAC are why I couldn't support her in the primaries. That and her wanting to launch an illegal war against Iran. But of course at the time I didn't know Obama wanted to also. More and more I wish I'd written in Cynthia McKinney in the general election.
Not the right wing media, the supposedly liberal main stream media.
They have hated the Clintons since 1992. One of the advantages Obama had was that he was the "anti-Hillary. It's an advantage that still works because those media figures who sided with him against Clinton are to a degree unwilling to side against him with the republicans. Combine that with Obama's preaching "high Broderism" keep the media slightly less than full anti-Obama.
If Clinton had won the nomination all of the media would have been arrayed against her as it was against Gore.
While I still think Clinton or just about any Democrat would have won in 2008, there would have been absolutely no favorable press.
We will never know how Clinton would have preformed as president. But we can be assured that her approval rating would be much lower than it is now.
...Level 1 is probably the initial level at which true involvement occurs with "The Family"
"(The following description should, I hope, explain why I am now gravely worried for Mrs. Clinton and what she's gotten herself into.)"
Study the symptoms not the virus...
...and a college republican back in the day. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
Thanks for posting the link, truth_critic.
"When profit comes up against morality, it's rare that profit loses."~Shirley Chisholm
You're welcome dolphin.:)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
The fact is, we'll probably never know what President Hillary Clinton would have done.
Why are you assuming that? Seems to me if her popularity stays up, she'll have a much better chance of being elected after Obama, if she cares to run again.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
I was SO pleased when sHillary lost the nomination to Obama.
And DOUBLY DISPLEASED when Obama appointed sHillary and hired Rahm & David .. and filled his administration with Clintonians and GW Bush holdovers.
I knew we were in deep deep trouble then.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
Dukakis bumper sticker just yesterday.
TFR
Susie,
I enjoy reading your posts and the stories you link to. I almost always agree with you. But you seem to be blinded about Hillary Clinton, lacking your usual skepticism and objectivity.
The evidence is massive (would fill books) that Hillary is not only a habitual liar and a consistent deceiver, but much, much worse. She has done tremendous harm to, and continues to be a serious threat to humanity, human rights, peace, self-determination, and the lives of defenseless civilians all around the world. Her personal connections to the US coordinated coup in Honduras with the resulting reinstitution of tyranny, terrorism, death squads, torture, disappearances and the killing of hope is unconscionable. Her easily debunked lies about Iran, Hugo Chavez, Iraq, Israel, and every other region of the world have helped to cause suffering on a huge scale and endanger many millions more.
Regardless of your current admiration for Hillary Clinton, I hope you reconsider your support. She would make a terrible and dangerous Secretary of Defense. She is not qualified to hold any public office.
Peace,
JK
PS: More Below the fold
"I'd call that one a wash, considering we instead elected the man who hired Larry Summers"...
... Larry Summers was Secretary of the Treasury for the last year and a half of the Clinton Administration.
The place is full of Clinton & Bush cronies. I was looking forward to a "New Day" and though it's brighter then the last 8 years, I believe the cronies are blurring the picture I had hoped to see. I still feel my vote for President Obama, was the best I could do, given the alternatives, at the the time.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
a Hillary Clinton / Jeb Bush ticket, running on the Crony Corporatist / AIPAC Party platform would have a better than even chance to win. I can see it now, just you wait ...
Not so dissimilar to the Al Gore / Joe Lieberman ticket that ran so successfully in 2000. And aren't we glad That didn't happen. Imagine Joe Lieberman a mere heartbeat away from the Presidency -- Al Gore wouldn't have stood a chance, because "something" would have happened.
(Susie, why do you hate America?)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Hillary fights side-by-side with Brownback and others for legislation dedicated less to overturning the wall between church and state than to tunneling beneath it. Practically speaking, such work appeased evangelical elites without drawing the notice of liberals who thought Hillary stood for separation, but such tunnels genuinely undermine the foundations. For instance, a law she backed to ensure "religious freedom" in the workplace that so distorts the meaning of the words that it makes even Republicans such as Senator Arlen Specter uneasy about its encroachments on First Amendment freedoms.
It's a sort of Bartleby option for those "who prefer not to": pharmacists who refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions, nurses who refuse to treat gay or lesbian patients, police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics. And then there was the passage, during Bill's presidency, of the International Religious Freedom Act, a move supported by Hillary. Like the workplace bill, it seemed sensible. Who's opposed to religious freedom? But in reality it shifted the monitoring of religion in other countries from the State Department to an independent, evangelical-dominated agency that drew much of its leadership from the Christian Legal Society, creating a platform for U.S. S. evangelicals to use religious freedom ratings as leverage for a sort of shadow foreign policy.
Hillary's stance toward Iran, more hawkish than that of many Republicans, is just one example of a position long held by elite fundamentalists mainstreamed through the work of an ostensibly liberal ally. --Jeff Sharlet
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Hillary Clinton voted to label parts of the Iranian government as terrorist organizations. She was well aware that the bill, in combination with the previously enacted legislation authorizing the use of force anywhere in the world under the false pretense of “fighting terrorism" enabled the secret acts of war against Iran which have been going on ever since, including the insertion of US special forces and terrorist cells, the killing and sabotage that goes with that, economic warfare and more. These war crimes are an abomination.
There is no evidence for instance that Iran has or has had a nuclear weapons development program or has ever had any desire to have one, yet she consistently talks as if that is a given. Some might point to the bogus NIE stating that they have had no such program since 2003 implying that there was one before 2003. But insiders say that particular NIE included no evidence that Iran ever had a program. Iran was an early signer of the NNPT and has complied with it. The additional provisions coerced out of the UN Security council are unlawful and violate of the UN charter. Therefore Iran is correct and lawful in refusing to be bound by them. She, just in the past 2 weeks, has discounted the Turkey-Brazil negotiation success in with Iran agreed to stop enrichment and let them provide the nuclear fuel for energy production. She is pushing hard (coercing)for unlawful, immoral sanctions against Iran that would at once violate the UN charter and inflict terrible suffering on the people of Iran.
As far as I know, she has never denounced the illegal sanctions against Iraq throughout the 90's that killed over a million defenseless civilians, a majority of whom were children. She continues to push the absurdity that Iran is a threat to (nuclear, 2nd strike capable) Israel who is not afraid of any nation-state. Remember, unlike any of our allies, Iran has not attacked another country in over 2 centuries. I would be glad to go over the evidence with you. Hillary has consistently backed a foreign policy of murderous aggression.
Domestically, Hillary Clinton has a long unequivocal track record as a corporatist and hsd been a member of the anti-progressive DLC. It is irrelevant that Obama is also a corporatist (though not in the DLC). Both of them endanger our freedom, our democracy, and do not respect the Constitution when it comes to constitutional protections of the populace.
Her popularity is also irrelevant in that it is a result of misinforming the public.
She would make a terrible and dangerous Secretary of Defense. She is not qualified to hold any public office for the above and many other reasons.
Regardless of your current admiration for Hillary Clinton, Please reconsider your support for Hillary Clinton.
Peace,
JK
Obama was the best choice of any of the candidates on the party tickets. However, it was my great pleasure to write-in Hillary Clinton on my 2008 ballot, voting as I did for the person I felt was potentially the best president of any that officially declared themselves a candidate.
The Clinton brand name was and still is the best brand name in economic recovery since FDR. And a recovery from the dire economic conditions that came into full bloom only after the nominations were set (and which wasn't even what the nomination campaigns started on. It was all about Iraq and Afghanistan, remember?) would benefit most from a name the country and the world could feel confident about.
Sure, the Repugs and their loyal partners in mainstream media would have come up with something else to attack and bring down a President Hillary Clinton on. But "She doesn't know what she's doing! She's turning the country SOCIALIST!!" would have been a much harder sell considering what her husband's White House accomplished after winning the post-Reaganomics horror "It's the economy, Stupid" election in '92.
I'd rather the economy be doing better because of more confidence that someone with a personal connection to making that happen once already in the past was in charge while Repugs and mainstream media was still criticising the way she looks in pant suits than the Repug tug-of-war to prolong the Recession and stifle more demonstrable economic recovery continued longer while the Repugs too often appear to be winning.
Feminism is crucial to our advancement as a society/people. Though it's my opinion, one should beware of the emotional, personal and logical reactions, with said movement.
If we can mitigate the connection between heart & mind, I believe we would, more often then not, make better choices.
Part of this opinion stems from the 2008 primaries were a Women revealed to me... I've not voted in 20 years and now that Hillery is running... I finally have a reason to. :-/
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Well, her voting record in Congress was MORE liberal then Barack's. Remember Barack voted for the telecom immunity, Hillary didn't. On most domestic issues, Hillary was the more liberal of the two.
A friend of mine is a union theater tech in Chicago -- when the politicians rent an auditorium it's the theater techs who do the lights and sound set-up, and often run the whole show.
She's seen speeches and Q&As with Obama, Bill Clinton and Hillary. Her rating: Obama is a very distant third, Bill is a close second, but Hillary is by far the best on her feet. My friend's a big fan of Bill, but Hillary still took first place. More facts, deeper analysis, faster wit.
I"m with Susie -- we could have had Hillary. If nothing else she would have pushed back at the repubs at the first salvo. With Barack, you get two months of free shots. (A year and a half, and these guys still haven't learned to push back effectively. Slowest damn learning curve I've ever seen.)
Hillary's Godtalk is more sincere than it sounds, grounded in the influence of a Methodist minister named Don Jones whom she met when he was a twenty eight-year-old youth pastor in Park Ridge, Illinois. Jones continues to counsel Hillary to this day. He calls the theological worldview behind her politics a third way, a reaction against both old-fashioned separatist fundamentalism and the New Deal's labor-based liberalism.
He describes the theology he taught as in the tradition of "Burkean conservatism," after the eighteenth-century reactionary philosopher's belief that change should be slow and come without the sort of "social leveling" that offends class hierarchy. Elites rule because they rule; tradition is its own justification, a tautology of power neither left nor right but circular.
Under Jones's mentorship, Clinton learned about theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich. Liberals may consider Niebuhr their own, but the Niebuhr whom Hillary Rodham studied with Jones and later at Wellesley College was a Cold Warrior, dismissive of the progressive politics of his earlier writing. --Jeff Sharlet
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Anyone who uses Republican-style race-bating to win, votes for a war which she refused to apologize for, and supports policies which(along with her husband) contributed to one of the worst economic disasters of the last century has no right to play the victim card. She had a better chance to win than any other candidate that year, and she blew it. If she makes a political come-back one day, it'll be because she earned it, not because of her husband's name; and that's the way it should be. And that's bullshit that she'd be more liberal than Obama. She was just as eager to nuke Iran as McCain, for fuke's sakes.
Comments are closed on this entry