Will Hillary Hurt The Rest Of The Ticket?

Democrats Worry Sen. Clinton Is Too Polarizing For The Party's Success

(AP)  Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

"I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.

Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination — despite privately held fears.

The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.

A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.

A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.

"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."

"Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."

In national surveys, Clinton's lead over chief rival Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has widened. Her advantage is much narrower where it counts most — in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire. In matchups against potential GOP presidential candidates, Clinton leads or is tied.

The Clinton campaign points to those figures to make a case for her electability in a constant stream of e-mails, letters and phone calls to jittery Democrats across the country. A key to their strategy is to give Clinton's candidacy a sense of inevitability despite her negative ratings, which aides insist will go down.

"All the negatives on her are out," said Clinton's pollster and strategist Mark Penn. "There is a phenomena with Hillary, because she is the front-runner and because she's been battling Republicans for so long, her unfavorability (rating) looks higher than what they will eventually be after the nomination and through the general election."

What the Clinton campaign doesn't say is that her edge over potential Republican candidates is much smaller than it should be, given the wide lead the Democratic Party holds over the GOP in generic polling.

The problem is her political baggage: A whopping 49 percent of the public says they have an unfavorable view of Clinton compared to 47 percent who say they hold her in high regard, according to a Gallup Poll survey Aug. 3-5.

Her negative ratings are higher than those of her husband, former President Clinton, former President George H.W. Bush and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry at the end of their campaigns.

[erasmus6]

"Hillary is a rabid anti-gun fascist if I've ever seen one." posted by GUNOWNERDAN

Is that all you ever think about is guns?

I bet if Hillary gets voted in, people half way around the world will hear GUNOWNERDAN whimpering and whining.

[gunownerdan]

Hillary is just another rabid anti-gun megalomaniac. I bet she drools when she thinks of all the power Bush has given to himself and future presidents.
Fascism is on the march!

[randaids]

ROTFLMAO

[nottellin1]

she changes her position more then her underwear (if she wears any). Not only that if i have to see her showing clevage again I might just throw up. She is not an attractive woman and needs to keep that in mind.
Posted by killtheliars at 12:56 PM : Aug 14, 2007

Hilary going commando? As if looking at her face weren't bad enough. Yikes!

[killtheliars]

she changes her position more then her underwear (if she wears any). Not only that if i have to see her showing clevage again I might just throw up. She is not an attractive woman and needs to keep that in mind.

[tucano2]

We are NOT supporting, nor will we vote for, anyone who supports AMNESTY.

[realpatriot1]

BarbJC1,

I understand that Dole has a certain persona to folks not as familiar with her as those of us in North Carolina. To borrow a Texas expression, she is all hat and no cattle.

For example, the Navy has been trying to build a simulated aircraft carrier practice landing site in eastern NC for several years now. THe only site yhey will consider is a wild bird sanctuary on the coast. The state has offered other alternative locations but the Navy thinks they're God and we're supposed to vow. Dole sided with the Navy right up until the point where her polling operation let her know that she was hurting her re-election efforts.

There are other issues where she has done nothing to represent the state. She's the epitomy of a Washington creature who does everything for the special interests and absolutely nothing for her constituents.

That's why she's considering retirement, because she knows how unpopular she is.

[jegibbons]

I take great comfort in these postings I've read. It's abundantly clear that the usual LEFTIE LOONEY suspects are growing shy of a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

To all you ladies, I suggest you latch onto a woman candidate with some character for the next time. I'll vote for her, not a problem.

Accusations of gender bias is like an old worn out fiddle, played best by a LOSER who can't read music and doesn't have a tune to play but nevertheless is anxious to make some noise.

[barbjc1]

Kathleen Sebelius, I totally agree. I am a Kansan, and our governor, who happens to be Kathleen Sebelius is in her last term per the Kansas Constitution. I am hoping she will unseat Sam Brownback. At this point however, besides the two women you named what other women do you think are qualified.
P.s. I vote independent but I am a fan of Elizabeth Dole

[sgtrds]

If Hilary wins the nomination and Mitt wins the nomination, who wilkl we vote for?
Posted by RandaIDS at 02:42 PM : Aug 13, 2007

This is not me. This is someone posting under an imitation of my old screen name. Notice the capital "I" instead of a small "L"

[opfor311]

A couple of Corrections:

1. Five Senators have been elected president (JFK, Warren G Harding, Benjamin Harrison, James Garfield, and Franklin Pierce). Only 2 in the last century however.

2. It is true that Clinton fired all 93 US Attornies at the beginning of a term (which is the more normal time). It is also true that Presidents have fired US Attornies at other times in their term, and they have chosen to fire less than all of them. Keep in mind that all US Attornies serve at the pleasure of the President, are confirmed by the Senate, and can be fired at any time for any reason by the President. No matter how much Congress investigates this matter, the firings themselves cannot be illegal.

[name_verify]

LIBERALS, POVERTY PIMPS, TERRORIST APOLOGISTS JOIN THE PRIDE PARADE HILLARY / BARAK 2008

[rhs648]

"We've done quite a bit since Sept.11 to defend the homeland from terrorist attack and I give the administration and Congressional memebers from both parties credit for that. There's still a whole lot more that needs to be done.

We need to do more to protect public spaces that're lower value targets but still acctractive to terrorists who want to create a significant body count, like monitoring shopping centers. Congress just passed legislation to tighten up on Port security. That's how we can best prevent having to "fight them on our shores". I support surveillance of terror suspects where probable cause exists."

Posted by realpatriot1

You present well reasoned arguments. I would simply add that we need to fight these people wherever we find them. They have shown an ability to move from one area to another as the need arises.

[realpatriot1]

rhs648,

We've done quite a bit since Sept.11 to defend the homeland from terrorist attack and I give the administration and Congressional memebers from both parties credit for that. There's still a whole lot more that needs to be done.

We need to do more to protect public spaces that're lower value targets but still acctractive to terrorists who want to create a significant body count, like monitoring shopping centers. Congress just passed legislation to tighten up on Port security. That's how we can best prevent having to "fight them on our shores". I support surveillance of terror suspects where probable cause exists.

As far as waging war against the Jihadists with our military is concerned, we need to stay focued on Afghanistan & Pakastan because that's where AQ and its state sponsers the Taliban's leadership structure is. Iraq is and has always been a diversion from the real war on terror, we need to get back to fighting the real war.

The people who attacked us(AQ & the Taliban( are Sunni Muslims. If we leave Iraq tomorrow, the 60% Shiite majority will rule the country. They aren't going to allow the Sunni AQ who bombed their sacred temple to take over the country. On the other hand, if the Taliban were to regain control in Kabul it's a certainty that AQ would once again have a safe haven to export terror, much like they do in northern Pakastan today.

[rhs648]

Speaking of getting sucked in by the hype, not one Democrat who voted to give the President the authorization to take action was cheerleading for the action he took. All Republican candidates, with the single exception of Ron Paul are still cheerleading to this day for what any rational person can see was a gross mistake and tragedy for the country.

I can understand why the Republicans want to spread the blame but it's BS of the highest order.

Posted by realpatriot1

What will you say when we are fighting the terrorists on our own shores?

[realpatriot1]

Speaking of getting sucked in by the hype, not one Democrat who voted to give the President the authorization to take action was cheerleading for the action he took. All Republican candidates, with the single exception of Ron Paul are still cheerleading to this day for what any rational person can see was a gross mistake and tragedy for the country.

I can understand why the Republicans want to spread the blame but it's BS of the highest order.

As a democrat who was pummeled for questioning the invasion before the fact and is still being pummeled for wanting out, I'd like to see conservatives take some personal responsibility for their decisions and stop trying to blame the democrats.

[gunownerdan]

Hillary is a rabid anti-gun fascist if I've ever seen one.

[rhs648]

If Hilary wins the nomination and Mitt wins the nomination, who wilkl we vote for?

Posted by RandaIDS

Not everyone has this problem? It is obvious from these posts that some people favor Hillary and some people favor Mitt. These people seem happy with the choices.

[randaids]

If Hilary wins the nomination and Mitt wins the nomination, who wilkl we vote for?

[rhs648]

I didn't vote for Bush..I knew all along it was a big mistake and I was right...you must have followed the hype yourself, so thank you for helping to put him in office.

Posted by horse3farm

An interesting opinion. Too bad you don't have facts to support it.