The only reason why I think Hillary might be viewed a little more negatively than some of the others

[mtnsnake]

...even though mainstream American Democrats are choosing her decisively in the national polls...

is because she's so much more well-known than anyone else, so it's only logical.

She's the front runner, she's the most well-known of any of the candidates on either side BY FAR, and she's been scrutinized from head to toe because of this. Thus it only makes sense that she might not be viewed quite as positively as another candidate in those "positive/negative" polls. While the rest of the candidates have been viewed in "positive/negative" polls for maybe a year, Hillary has been under the magnifying glass for over a decade. Considering this, I'd say she's doing remarkably well in the popularity department and is right where she wants to be.

Once the other candidates are equally scrutinized...like if they become the front runner, for example, or even their Party's candidate...then they'll be taken through the meat grinder, too, put into the fish bowl, and their negative viewing will also increase as much, maybe more than Hillary's.

In essence, I think Hillary's own amazing notoriety is the only thing that makes her "appear" as somewhat polarizing to some people. Once the public gets to "know" whoever it is that we Democrats elect as our candidate, that person will become just as polarizing, maybe even more so, than Hillary. By the time the general election rolls around, Hillary just might be viewed more positively, and less polarizing, than any of the other candidates, for all we know.

So if Hillary gets the nod, relax. By the time the general election rolls around, she'll be just as popular, maybe even more so, than the others. :smoke:

[ccpup]

1. like I posted earlier

Obama and Edwards have whole fields of fresh dirt to till. And, with Obama especially, I fear there is actually some "there" there when it comes to information that could be -- rightly or not -- skewed into something more salacious.

With Hillary, it's a collective shrug of the shoulders on the part of the American People and "oh, please, that again?". With Obama and Edwards, it will probably be more of a "(gasp) You're kidding! He did THAT? Tell me more!"

One is without a doubt more damaging than the other.

[MNDemNY]

2. You will be , sadly, flamed for making sense.

[ccpup]

6. that's okay

I just got called an "offensive asshole" on another thread for a Post that wasn't in any way offensive. DU seems to be more "I am rubber, you are glue ..." with every passing day than actual informed conversation about politics and candidates.

[MNDemNY]

8. Have you received the "neener-neener" yet? I love that one.

[ccpup]

16. Ah ... something to look forward to! n/t

[mtnsnake]

10. Yup. Once everyone concentrates on someone else, as much as they have Hillary, it's only inevitable

that the popular/unpopular...polarizing/unpolarizing...factors will all equal out.

[Adelante]

14. Can you elaborate, please?

You seem to have something to say, which you want to say without saying it.

And, with Obama especially, I fear there is actually some "there" there when it comes to information that could be -- rightly or not -- skewed into something more salacious.

Give us what you've got or retract.

[MNDemNY]

17. How about ADMITTED cocaine use?

Retract that.

[CyberPieHole]

28. Please don't confuse Obamanations with facts....

they don't do well with facts. You might get called a racist for bringing up a "RW" talking point as well.

[ccpup]

20. from Judicial Watch

-- an admittedly Right Wing group:

In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

...

Most people who are just discovering Obama will read something like that and, true or not, potentially believe it. And that precious sense that Obama has been selling of him being a Candidate of Hope and Change will go out the door to be replaced by him as Just Another Politician.

Now, the things above may be discounted, but how many voters are going to seek out that information when they're being blasted by the MSM with "sweetheart land deal!" or "illegal stock options with large campaign donors!". It won't matter what the real story is to the majority of people who scan the headlines. They'll see that and, not knowing him well, shake their heads and go, "damn, and I thought I could trust him. That he was different. Oh well".

[MNDemNY]

22. And being a "Chicagoland" pol, this is only a start.

[ccpup]

27. I don't like the Source

as I tend to not believe anything written by Right Wing Groups funded by Richard Mellon Scaife. But if THEY can find that stuff and cover it with a question mark, what will the MSM -- desperate for a salacious story to print -- do with it? And how will Flatfoot Obama deal with it?

With Hillary, having been through Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica, etc and so on forever and ever, the American People -- having made up their minds long ago (evidenced by the Clinton Presidency's continued high Poll Numbers and Hillary's election and re-election to the Senate) that it was much ado about nothing -- will shrug their shoulders and tune out.

But with someone new like Obama who is (stupidly, in my opinion) selling himself as a Candidate of Hope and Change. Oh man, just paint the bullseye on yourself, Obama. The MSM will be foaming at the mouth to "sex up" even the most innocent of charges to know that label off him. AND it'll all be brand new info for the Public to pour through, salivate over, discuss ad nauseum on the talking head shows, on the radio, on the Access Hollywood puff piece shows. It's all new and, therefore, much more exciting than dusty old White Water and Monica.

And that's dangerous for us as Dems. Especially with someone who's inexperienced when it comes to handling -- in this type of situation -- the MSM.

[Adelante]

24. Thanks

I thought you might have had something new to share :hi:

[Nailzberg]

37. 1. Consider the source & 2. Clinton's on that list, too. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

18. Yay! Vote for Hillary....

Because "People already know why they don't like her"...

Winning talking point there.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

19. so what might be uncovered about Obama is worse

than what already has been uncovered on Hillary?

this is a poor argument to make in support of Hillary. in fact, it won't be a "collective shrug" it will be a collective shudder down the backs of millions of Americans who HATE and DESPISE her, fairly or not. Obama or Edwards will get smeared and trashed for sure, but it seems like a Herculean task to get the American public to hate them as much as they already hate her.

[MNDemNY]

23. Your hatred spills out beyond your post. Tripe.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

34. so millions of people don't hate Hillary Clinton?

please do tell. Do people hate Edwards or Obama in equal numbers and as fervently as they hate Hillary? Please educate me about this.

[SoFlaJet]

3. I've never seen a democratic front runner

so unpopular within their own party like HRC is. A LOT of us plain old don't even like her...add to that the way all her surrogates have been using Rovian tactics...well I'll vote for...but ONLY if I have to...hey Mike Bloomberg...you still thinking of running as an independent?

[MNDemNY]

7. The last one I remember was Bill Clinton, "Slick Willie"

He was roundly vilified during the primaries. We all know how "poorly" that turned out.

[SoFlaJet]

9. Bill Clinton left office

with a 65% approval rating-Hillary is under 50% now

[MNDemNY]

11. Your making my point.

[Armstead]

31. If Bill Clinton had left office slightly later his approval would have been in the dumpster

Bad as Bush is, he didn't cause the economy to drop so quickly after he took office.

A President's popularity often reflects the perceptions of economic conditions when they are in office.

The groundwork for the downturn of 2000 was laid before Bush ever took the oath. (9-11 made it worse, but that's anotehr subject.)

If Clinton had been president and left office during the downturn that happened in early 2001, his popularity ratings would have followed. He was lucky he got out when he did.

[karynnj]

35. Not really true -

he was justifiably criticized for much during the primaries - Genefer Flowers and how he avoided being drafted, for 2. In both cases, he responded by giving various answers until the full story came out. There were patterns there that continue to this day. Lies were ok, especially if they were in the same newscycle. Attacking the people involved was as well.

In fact, I wish people would have said they didn't approve of the candidate. Instead many of us supported him uncritically because he was the candidate - and let charm hide any qualms we had about his integrity. He was head and shoulders better than Bush 1 (and obviously, Bush 2), but part of his legacy - which hurt the very clean cut Gore, was that he was less than principled on things like campaign financing.

[mtnsnake]

12. That's because you've never seen a front runner who's already been put thru the mill like Hillary

How she's stayed as popular as she has, despite your claims to the contrary, is amazing to say the least.

[JohnnyLib2]

4. Thank you for the common sense, non-inflammatory post.

:thumbsup:

K & R

[mtnsnake]

15. You're welcome

:toast:

[FormerDittoHead]

5. Her being well known is also the reason she's the front runner as well. n/t

[mtnsnake]

13. It might be one of the reasons, but not the ONLY reason. She's also earned her way to the top. nt

[FormerDittoHead]

33. ...in spite of the negatives, I will agree. n/t

[otherlander]

21. Do any of the other candidates want to give military aid to Colombia?

[otherlander]

39. Look, kids, I'm psychic.

I predict that this question will be ignored. And I foresee lots of talking about the use of the word "bitch", unfair focus on sex scandals, and drugs done by Barack Obama. Now who wants a tarrot reading?

[William769]

25. K&R!

[Perry Logan]

26. Most young adults in America were weaned on lies about the Clintons.

[karynnj]

36. You are probably right

The lies on the right are despicable, but the kids on the left were not raised with the truth either. I know I spoke only of the positive they did to my kids, which they now consider to have been dishonest on my part. I doubt I was alone.

[CyberPieHole]

29. K&R for Clinton! n/t

[JackORoses]

30. are you sure that's the only reason?

couldn't it be her disingenuous nature?
her political triangulation?
her inability to answer a straight question?
her corporate attachments?
her War support?
her Dirty Campaigning?

are you sure these along with many others aren't valid reasons, as well?

[mtnsnake]

32. Considering the amount of time she's been under the microscope, yeah, I think that's the case

Then again, I posted the words "I think" in the OP title for a reason...just to let you know that it's just my opinion. :)

[hisownpetard]

38. Since you support Senator Clinton, you might want to reconsider your use of the word 'notoriety,'

since it has a negative connotation, i.e. being well-known or famous for some *bad* quality or deed.

Left as it is, you may find many non-Hillary-supporters agreeing with you:
<<In essence, I think Hillary's own amazing notoriety is the only thing that makes her "appear" as somewhat polarizing to some people>>