Not Exaclty the kind of article the Clinton camp wants running in the Union Leader

An electable Democrat: Who says Obama isn't one?

Sunday, Dec. 9, 2007

NEW Hampshire Democrats voted for John Kerry in the 2004 primary in large part because they viewed him as the most electable candidate. They've had buyer's remorse ever since.

Now they are making the same calculation about Hillary Clinton. That math might well produce the same answer it did last time.

New Hampshire Democrats tell pollsters that they want a fresh voice. They say they want change. They say they want someone who will do things differently in Washington. They say they want someone who is honest and trustworthy, who agrees with them on the war in Iraq and who inspires them. They say they value change over experience.

And by and large they say Hillary Clinton represents none of these things. Yet they say they prefer her as their party's nominee. Why?

The only explanation is that they view her as more electable than the other candidates.

Polls of New Hampshire Democrats have consistently shown that Barack Obama rates as more honest, more likeable, more trustworthy and more inspiring than Hillary Clinton. The two areas where Clinton ranks higher are experience and electability.

Granted, Obama has only a few short years of experience in elected national office. But then, so does Clinton. Obama actually has more experience in elected office than Clinton does. Her Washington experience consists mostly of being the wife of the President. That counts for something, but does it really count as a qualification for the Oval Office?

If Democrats really valued experience that highly, they'd be looking more seriously at Joe Biden. What they're saying is that they want someone who can beat the Republican nominee.

But there is little reason to believe that Clinton has a better shot at victory next November than Obama does.

Do New Hampshire Democrats really believe Clinton, one of the least liked politicians in America -- even among Democrats -- is the most electable?

Seems to us that New Hampshire Democrats' hearts are with Obama but their heads are with Clinton -- and only because they figure other Americans will choose Clinton so they might as well too. That doesn't strike us as a very good deal for Democrats who are tired of the Washington establishment.

Yes, electability matters. But simply assuming that Clinton is the most electable candidate is assuming a lot. Especially when Republicans are itching for their chance to take her on.

Not Exaclty the kind of article the Clinton camp wants running in the Union Leader

An electable Democrat: Who says Obama isn't one?

Sunday, Dec. 9, 2007

NEW Hampshire Democrats voted for John Kerry in the 2004 primary in large part because they viewed him as the most electable candidate. They've had buyer's remorse ever since.

Now they are making the same calculation about Hillary Clinton. That math might well produce the same answer it did last time.

New Hampshire Democrats tell pollsters that they want a fresh voice. They say they want change. They say they want someone who will do things differently in Washington. They say they want someone who is honest and trustworthy, who agrees with them on the war in Iraq and who inspires them. They say they value change over experience.

And by and large they say Hillary Clinton represents none of these things. Yet they say they prefer her as their party's nominee. Why?

The only explanation is that they view her as more electable than the other candidates.

Polls of New Hampshire Democrats have consistently shown that Barack Obama rates as more honest, more likeable, more trustworthy and more inspiring than Hillary Clinton. The two areas where Clinton ranks higher are experience and electability.

Granted, Obama has only a few short years of experience in elected national office. But then, so does Clinton. Obama actually has more experience in elected office than Clinton does. Her Washington experience consists mostly of being the wife of the President. That counts for something, but does it really count as a qualification for the Oval Office?

If Democrats really valued experience that highly, they'd be looking more seriously at Joe Biden. What they're saying is that they want someone who can beat the Republican nominee.

But there is little reason to believe that Clinton has a better shot at victory next November than Obama does.

Do New Hampshire Democrats really believe Clinton, one of the least liked politicians in America -- even among Democrats -- is the most electable?

Seems to us that New Hampshire Democrats' hearts are with Obama but their heads are with Clinton -- and only because they figure other Americans will choose Clinton so they might as well too. That doesn't strike us as a very good deal for Democrats who are tired of the Washington establishment.

Yes, electability matters. But simply assuming that Clinton is the most electable candidate is assuming a lot. Especially when Republicans are itching for their chance to take her on.

Obama is surging! He's up five and Hillary is down four.

The best thing about it is he's picked exactly the right time!

from the internals:

---------------------------------------- ---------
RP5. Although you are a Republican or lean toward that party, suppose for a moment you could vote
in the Democratic primaries next year. Which of the Democratic candidates do you think would
make the best president if he or she won the general election in November: Delaware Senator
Joe Biden, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, former
North Carolina Senator John Edwards, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Illinois Senator
Barack Obama, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, or Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel?
(RANDOM ORDER)
Dec. 6-9
2007
Obama 23%
Edwards 19%
Richardson 14%
Clinton 13%
Biden 9%
Dodd 5%
Gravel 4%
Kucinich 3%
No opinion 11%
---------------------------------------- --------

So much for his unelectability huh....

Also, the most recent weekly Rasmussen results have Obama only behing by 9 points:

For the seven days ending December 9, Hillary Clinton earns 35% of the vote. Barack Obama is second at 26% followed by John Edwards at 14%. Bill Richardson is at 5%, Joe Biden attracts 3%, Dennis Kucinich 2%. Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel are at 1% while 12% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters are undecided (review history of weekly results).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/2008_democratic_presid ential_primary

I'm just happy that Ms. Inevitability isn't so Inevitable now.

Huckabee has about the same or less support nationally as Obama, but he has caught Giuliani because obviously Giuliani only had about 25% nationally.  Hillary has had in the 40's, which I think represents are still large lead in population centers like California, NY, and Florida.  History tells us that Hillary's numbers will shrink when Obama starts winning primaries.

My theory: someone in another campaign printed these up and stuck the "Paid for Obama" or what have you at the bottom.

Or does anyone believe that doesn't happen?