LA Times article - A Democrat, yes, but not that one

[TeamJordan23]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems17jun17,0,2448031,full.story?coll=la-home-center
From the Los Angeles Times

A Democrat, yes, but not that one
Polls show voters support the party, but individual candidates – particularly Clinton – are another story entirely.
By Michael Finnegan
Times Staff Writer

6:54 PM PDT, June 16, 2007

Frederick Cole wants the Democratic Party to take back the White House in 2008. "Look what a mess we're in," said Cole, a nurse in Louisville, Ky. "It's time for some fresh, new-thinker ideas."

Yet if his party nominates Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York for president, the 52-year-old Democrat plans to vote for her Republican opponent.

"It's a personal thing," Cole said. "I don't like her. I think she's condescending and arrogant, even worse than Al Gore, who has no personality."

It is a paradox of the 2008 presidential race. By a wide margin, several polls show, voters want a Democrat to win — yet when offered head-to-head contests of leading announced candidates, many switch allegiance to the Republican.

In a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll conducted earlier this month, this dynamic was most clearly evident with Clinton.

When registered voters were asked which party they would like to win the White House, they preferred a Democrat over a Republican by 8 percentage points. But in a race pitting Clinton against Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor was favored by 10 percentage points.

Clinton's showing against Giuliani was the starkest example of how the general Democratic edge sometimes narrows or vanishes when voters are given specific candidates to chose between.



[e-mail]
==========================================
EDIT: COPYRIGHT. PLEASE POST ONLY 4 OR 5
PARAGRAPHS FROM THE COPYRIGHTED NEWS SOURCE
PER DU RULES.

[Hekate]

1. The alleged Clinton machine better get busy putting out the truth about Giuliani's record...

...and the NYC firefighters' dis-endorsement of him.

My gods, people are stupid.

Hekate

[bluestateguy]

2. The Republican nominee must be tied to Bush, again and again

Giuliani/Thompson/McCain/Romney/Whoever must be linked to Bush over and over and over again. A vote for him is a vote to continue Bush policies. "Like the direction of this county? Vote for the Republican nominee." "If you like George W. Bush, you'll LOVE the Republican nominee". Then pictures and film footage of the Republican nominee hugging Bush, saying "Thank God George Bush is president" must be played over and over again in campaign ads. If the Republican nominee has a congressional voting record, people need to know how often he voted with the official position of the Bush White House.

If the DC Cocktail Party Consultants can't do this, then they are losers who deserve to lose.

[watrwefitinfor]

22. You are so-o-o-o-o correct. Congress too.

Our candidates MUST run against BUSH policies and the Republican Party.

All Repub candidates MUST be tied to them, and especially to Bush, who the country has come to hate.

Wat

[BeyondGeography]

28. The Republicans' biggest problem is that none of their candidates are running against Bush

if that happens, watch out. McCain could have been that candidate, but his inexplicably unconditional embrace of the Iraq war has done him in. Giuliani is decidedly not that candidate.

[Enrique]

3. many republicans will cross over to vote for Hillary

their disgust with their party is that heavy.

[TeamJordan23]

6. so far the indication I get is that many will unite against her. NT

[fujiyama]

7. Where though?

In the northeast, maybe, where the republican party is dying, but even there I think a potential Giuliani nominationn with his supposed "moderate" image could help them considerably.

In every other region, republicans will not vote for her...In fact, she'll be the single best GOP GOTV effort in years...and all sponsored by Dems.

[Kahuna]

21. Not even in the NE. Polls consistently show her losing to Rudy in NJ and PA.

We're doomed. :-(

[w4rma]

33. What reality are you living in? Republicans will vote in swarms against Hillary.

Turn-out on the Republican side will be record-breaking.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. I have heard many democrats, like me, say the will not vote for Hillary at all.

but, she will get people out voting in droves. Republicans will turn out in record numbers to vote against her.
alot of dems will stay home rather than vote for her.

[TeamJordan23]

5. I just think people will realize that we will be having another Bush/Clinton in the Whitehouse and

opt for someone different.

[jmp]

11. So the strategy of Obama supporters is ...

Blackmail the party? Support our guy or we will stay home? Nice.

[Ethelk2044]

16. No not that at all. People are tired of Bush Clinton Bush Clinton

We need someone in there who will care about the people. We need someone talking about Medical Care, outsourcing jobs, education. Those are the things Barack people care about. Alot of people are getting involved because they do not want the same old politics. Barack is appealing to people who have never been involved in politics. They want to get involved because they are tired of the way the government has been handling things.

[ElizabethDC]

29. Hillary doesn't talk about health care or education?!

Those are two of her biggest issues and are two issues that she has focused on in the past. Have you been paying attention at all. Further proof that you have not.

As for Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, what I'm tired of is the Bushes. The Clintons are fine with me.

[TeamJordan23]

26. Who said they will not vote for her are Obama supporters? nt

[fujiyama]

8. Dumb headline

The article reveals nothing new. Hillary is well known and polarizing. No shit. This is what the LA Times calls journalism?

But the thing about Obama amuses me the most. I find it funny how it buries how he's beating every republican by decent margins in head-to-head match-ups near the end of the article. Instead it focuses on one man that prefers McCain to him, even though Obama beats him by 12 points.

[Peace Patriot]

12. Excellent point, Fujiyama! I noticed it, too. I said "huh?" and went back and

re-read it. Yup, Obama beats them all. And they just sloughed it off.

[Kahuna]

20. Excellent!!!

:yourock:

[Diego360]

9. My letter to the author

Dear Mr. Finnegan,

Your article (A Democrat, yes, but not that one) is, to paraphrase the Downing Street Minutes, an attempt to "fit the facts around the narrative." You contend that, "voters want a Democrat to win — yet when offered head-to-head contests of leading announced candidates, many switch allegiance to the Republican." This is simply not the case in regards to Senator Obama as you grudgingly acknowledge at the very end of your piece. This fact is not inconsequential-- in fact, it destroys the very narrative you have struggled to present. Despite your attempt to link the struggles of Clinton and Edwards to Obama, the simple truth is that Obama handily defeats all of the Republican candidates, by double digits in most cases.

Perhaps the headline of you article should have read: A Democrat, yes, but only if it's Obama

[Peace Patriot]

13. Ditto! Excellent point! Good catch! nt

[saracat]

14. Struggles of Clinton and Edwards? Edwards beats ALL the GOPERs in most polls and 2 out of 3 in this

poll, so what is your point? It is NO way "only if it is Obama"!

[TeamJordan23]

24. Agree, Edwards would also do well like Obama in GE. nt

[Ethelk2044]

17. Good Point

[BeyondGeography]

30. I love how he tucked that sentence in the last part of the article

"Obama was ahead in all the matchups: by 5 percentage points over Giuliani, 12 over McCain and 16 over Romney."

[jmp]

10. "It's a personal thing," - Frederick Cole

Um ... it can't be. She doesn't know you're alive. ;)

[Peace Patriot]

15. I often vigorously argue on behalf of the American people that they are not

"sheeple," and that they are far better informed and more progressive than anyone realizes. I mean, look at their opposition to the war, way back at the beginning, Feb. '03 (56% opposed!), and its growth to 70+% today! They have shown themselves remarkably resistant to relentless, 24/7 warmongering and fascist propaganda.

But this article tests my faith in my fellow and sister Americans. Did you ever read such stupid comments?

However, along with my faith in the American people has come my conviction that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies are really doing a number on us, in their creation of a portrait of other Americans as uninformed, easily led, stupid consumers who deserve George Bush as president--and additional creation of a mythical rightwing majority (that goes well with stolen elections), by deliberately giving a Big Trumpet to way-out-of-the-mainstream rightwing views, to make members of the great progressive American majority feel demoralized, powerless and alone.

I am convinced that this is quite deliberate. And if you analyze this article with these notions in mind, you can almost see this corporate news monopoly tactic in actual operation. The highly selective, often irrelevant quotes. The emphasis on "personalities" rather than substance. The once over lightly poll, and its once over lightly artificial "story."

They have contempt for the American people--almost a hatred of us and our democracy--and they go about trying to make people stupid and trying to convince us that we are all stupid. They are trying to create despair.

And they fail to ask the really important questions. For instance: In match-up between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliana, whom do you think the rigged voting machines--run on "trade secret," proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations--would favor?

(I think it's a toss-up.)

[earthlover]

18. The shift away from Hillary in this poll is remarkable

Clearly put, there are lots of people out there who WANT to vote Democratic this time, but are so turned off by Hillary that they won't. At the same time, Obama wins against all comers.

The solution?

Well, one would be to nominate Hillary and campaign against Bush. Show everyone how bad Bush is and that Bush should not be our president.

But Bush is not running. And the Republican candidate is guaranteed to distance himself from Bush as much as possible, then give us the familiar Republican talking points that got Bush elected in the first place.

Seems to me if we nominate Hillary we are entering a swimming race with an anchor tied to our butts.

[Kahuna]

19. Too much logic in your post. We need a post about how to

FORCE FEED Hillary upon the 60% of Americans who will not vote for her under any circumstance. :sarcasm:

[TeamJordan23]

23. yeah, unlike 2004, we are not running against Bush this time.

The Repub nominee will differentiate themselves from Bush in the General Election. Hillary's hatred runs so deep that I don't think she will just be able to blame Bush for everything and get elected on just that.

[tblue37]

25. More evidence that a huge chunk of American voters

are just morons: "It's a personal thing," Cole said. "I don't like her. I think she's condescending and arrogant, even worse than Al Gore, who has no personality."

This also shows that he takes his talking points from the corporate media. Apparently, he would also vote against Al Gore if he were the nominee--no doubt because he can't imagine having a beer with him.

[SaveElmer]

27. Misleading story...they only quote their own poll...

Had they looked at all polls they would see their conclusions do not hold water

[fujiyama]

31. Really?

Hillary under performs all other top tier Dems in head-to-head match ups in most polls.

[SaveElmer]

32. Not in the other two most recent...

Q-Poll had her beating all Reps at about the same percentage as both Obama and Edwards...