“Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.”
Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message.
But they should get out of D.C., New York and L.A. more often, and visit grassroots members.
Because we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.”
We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.”
And: “Political wh***.”
"Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it." I have said this for a long time, that Hillary's lead in these super early polls is name recognition only and that her support amoung primary voters in at least the early states is pretty soft. Still, "55 percent of ARG’s sample was either neutral or positive about Sen. Clinton. Thirty-two percent currently say they plan to vote for her in the primary." In a multi-person race, that is still a pretty big lead. I think that is Kerry or Dean numbers in 2004 New Hampshire. And really, Democrats can't ignore the Granite State. It was the lone 2000 Bush state to swing to Kerry. Bottom line: "It’s hard to see any Democrat winning the White House without carrying the state in the presidential election. And it’s hard, right now, to see Hillary carrying the state."
The grassroots is really not behind Hillary, and she already has enough battles to face against the GOP machine. Also, I would really like it if we didn't have a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton line of succession. We are a Democracy, and no matter how great the Clinton brand is, I would like to a Clark or a Warner give it a shot.