Poll: More Dems Think Hillary Is Running The Most Positive Campaign

Comments (53)

pacificdrummer wrote on December 10, 2007 2:21 PM:

If by "explaining" they mean restating the phrase "I have more experience" over and over again, then, yes that is exactly what she has done.

pacificdrummer wrote on December 10, 2007 2:22 PM:

If by "explaining" they mean repeating that she has more experience over and over again, then, yes, she is doing a lot of explaining.

kjoe wrote on December 10, 2007 2:28 PM:

I am sure it would show hillary in an even more positive light today----after the biggest crowds in the history of primary campaigning showed up and got---was it negative?---messages from Oprah.

This is scraping the bottom of the barrel to post something supposedly positive on behalf of hillary. Krugman's column would have been better. You should be embarrassed and fearful that your access to Hillary in the future will be diminished if you cannot do a more competent job of puffing for her than this.

Desider wrote on December 10, 2007 2:29 PM:

PacificDrummer has caught the repeating repeating bug, it seems.

pacificdrummer wrote on December 10, 2007 2:31 PM:

Sorry, I thought it didn't go through the first time I tried. But, yeah, it's kind of ironic.

onceler wrote on December 10, 2007 2:34 PM:

this is just sad.

Gus wrote on December 10, 2007 2:35 PM:

Kind of interesting that the McClachy poll in Iowa released yesterday found just the opposite, that Clinton was thougth to be running the most "negative" campaign.

Further evidence for something I've believed for quite some time -- the national media coverage is almost entirely at odds with how its playing out in Iowa and other early states. National media is obsessed with Clinton and everyone else "attacking" her; early states communication is much more substantive by and about everyone except Clinton.

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 2:37 PM:

FYI, the recent Mason-Dixon polls in IA, NH, and SC got somewhat contradictory results, finding a plurality of likely Democratic voters in each of those states believed that Clinton had run the most negative campaign. Although that somewhat makes sense to me (that the people in early states and the people nationwide might have different impressions at this stage).

BJ wrote on December 10, 2007 2:38 PM:

It looks like Hillary was running a very positive campaign, not attacking any of the other guys by name. But she had to fight back when they were continuously attacking. Not to fight back would be foolish. But, yes, I think she was taking the high road (mostly because she was so far ahead.)

Michael's Mom wrote on December 10, 2007 2:41 PM:

Greg,

As one who read Josh back when he still was making excuses for not supporting marriage equality, I have to say that reading your EC updates since this campaign's start has been a continually disappointing exercise. You couldn't possibly be more supportive of her if you actually worked on the campaign. Why not just go and do that? And stop messin' with the integrity of my TPM.

destor23 wrote on December 10, 2007 2:42 PM:

As long as she's not hanging out with Oprah.

Seriously, Hillary's campaign hasn't been negative, just because she's criticized Obama's ideas. You can have a positive campaign and still be critical. I think people can see that.

Andrew wrote on December 10, 2007 2:42 PM:

This result isn't particularly surprising, and not particularly relevant for the same reasons: it's a national poll of potential voters who still, generally speaking, aren't tuned in to the day-to-day campaigning that is going on.

It's no surprise that the polls in the early states (Iowa, NH, and SC) all clearly indicate that voters view Clinton as running a generally negative campaign.

It's been said many times before, but it's still just as true: national polls, in a primary race, are essentially meaningless.

Greg wrote on December 10, 2007 2:45 PM:

Michael's Mom --

guess you missed the multiple posts we did all through last week slamming the WaPo over their bogus Obama Muslim smear story, a series of posts which was one of the key reasons that the WaPo pub editor chastising the paper.

Do those posts count as pro-Hillary too?

Michael's Mom wrote on December 10, 2007 2:53 PM:

Greg-

Those posts and their MSM criticism are about general brand protection. We've all signed onto the idea that we can't let THEM be the only national narrative about Democrats heard by the non-politically obsessed. I also go around saying that it insults me that people criticize Hillary for being ambitious, as if the other people running for president are all shrinking violets who only live to serve. For me, that's just (FEMALE) brand protection. That is very different from what you've been doing at EC since this election got started, and any reasoned analysis of the sum of your posts would tell the story.

BDB wrote on December 10, 2007 2:57 PM:

I guess Chris Matthews has more work to do!

I think HRC and Obama have been about equal in the negativity department. Obama, IMO, started it - at the urging of the MSM, who couldn't wait until Hillary hit back so they could call her angry and/or mean - but I don't really think it matters who started it. There is no way a close campaign is going all the way to the end with all sweetness and light. And it shouldn't - whatever Clinton and Obama say about each other will be nothing compared to what the RNC does to the nominee.

Mary wrote on December 10, 2007 3:00 PM:

destor,
Obama has a positive campaign that is still critical of the status quo. Hillary on the other hand is attacking Obama's kindergarten assignments. Now there's a leader we can believe in.
Oh BTW Greg
Slamming an obvious media bias in WaPo is not exactly covering equally. It is abundantly clear that TPM has spent more time putting Hill in a more positive light while putting Obama in a negative. How about some even coverage. There are good and not so good in both. I like TPM and is a great source for what is wrong with the current administration today. I love your fettering out of corruption. But your 2008 race coverage leaves a little to be desired.

nate wrote on December 10, 2007 3:03 PM:

Greg, very misleading title you have there. "Most positive" is not at all the same as your ratio of explaining: attacking.

Rhoda wrote on December 10, 2007 3:03 PM:

That has to be fairly discouraging for Clinton then; it means people are tuning out of her campaign for personal reasons and substantive position points.

I guess the electable thing, the ghost of Clinton hyper-partisanship, and the fact she's been on the wrong side of the Iraq war and the Iran question is affecting the democratic electorate.

Michael's Mom wrote on December 10, 2007 3:04 PM:

Destor23-

I guess you're right Hillary's campaign has been really positive, especially the part where her supporters email the Obama muslim slur around Iowa.

Greg-

Just to finish up: In the same week that two Clinton supporters are dismissed for the email slur that you're now taking single-handed credit for the WashPost reversing themselves on, I find it..um, ironic..that you cite a single poll clearly at odds with the truth on the ground. Secondly, I myself had a several email exchange with Perry Bacon (of which I have a record) that may convince you that hundreds if not thousands of outraged emails and letters may have had a little to do with the WashPost pub editor "chastising the paper."

Ni Daye wrote on December 10, 2007 3:08 PM:

People, wake up! Experience counts! If your toilet is broken down, do you want somebody who has a lot of experience fixing it or someone who is totally new in the scene.

Obama's call on Iraq War was not based on experience or detailed analysis on intelligence. It is based on his gut feeling. He is lucky that the war turns out this way. We have already had someone in the white house making decisions based on gut feeling. we don't need another one.

You can call a horse race right once upon a time. It does not make you an horse race expert.

Daniel wrote on December 10, 2007 3:15 PM:

Read this detailed analysis of just how bad things are for Hillary Clinton: Despite a reality check that shows that things are not as desperate as some might say they are, her troubles are much deeper than her poll numbers indicate.

Daniel wrote on December 10, 2007 3:16 PM:

And NiDaye, that's a dumb argument. He was not "lucky" -- many of us knew that the war was a disaster because it was obviously so by every single historical lesson we have, starting with Vietnam. We all knew what was going on, and the argument that "circumstances were different then" is utterly false.

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 3:18 PM:

Ni Daye,

Well, the good news is that Obama elaborated on exactly why he thought the Iraq War was a "dumb war". So, people can go back and look at his argument at the time and see if they think he showed insight and good judgment, or rather, as you claim, just had a gut feeling and got lucky.

NCSteve wrote on December 10, 2007 3:20 PM:

People, wake up! Being married to a plumber doesn't make you one yourself. If you think it does and start messing with the pipes, all you're going to do is screw things up.

Hillary's call on Iraq War was not based on experience or detailed analysis on intelligence. It was based on her gut feeling about what would best serve her long term political ambitions. She was unlucky that the war turned out this way, but how could she possibly have known that trusting that Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney were telling the truth and were competent would be a mistake?

We have already had someone in the White House making decisions based on short-sighted pathologically cynical political calculation and "facts" filtered solely through yes men. We don't need another one.

You can miscall a horse race right once upon a time. It does not make you an horse race expert.

vena wrote on December 10, 2007 3:23 PM:

None of the campaigns have been completely positive, but to say that Hillary's has been the most positive says to me that most of these people probably aren't doing their research. Then again, most news stations won't report on some of the things we read in these blogs.

john mccutchen wrote on December 10, 2007 3:26 PM:

Mrs. Bill's Meltdown

San Francisco Chronicle Front Page

Clinton Lead Collapses in Early States - Candidates Woo California http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/12/10/MNGUTQ8OU.DTL

john mccutchen wrote on December 10, 2007 3:34 PM:

Live By Inevitability - Die by Inevitability

For Clinton, "California isn't a lock at all," said Michael Semler, professor of politics at Cal State Sacramento, who added that success in the Golden State is vital for the former first lady. "She'd better win California - or she's history." Semler said that based on the new volatility in the Democratic race, "I have a growing belief that the (2008 Democratic) convention might really be a convention." SF Chron

(via Mybo)

By the numbers:

* At least 66,500 attended the rallies (More than 29,000 in Iowa, more than 29,000 in South Carolina and 8,500 in New Hampshire)
* 4,250 volunteers helped to build the events in the week prior and the day of the events (2,300 in South Carolina, 1,300 in Iowa and 650 in New Hampshire)
* In South Carolina, 68% of the folks who signed up for the rally had never communicated with the campaign before. 1,300 supporters volunteered the day of the rally and more than 9,600 signed supporter cards for the first time. The first attendees arrived at the stadium between 5:00-5:30 a.m. yesterday morning.
* In Iowa, tickets were distributed out of all 37 field offices around the state. In Des Moines alone, 1,385 volunteer shifts were completed for individuals who wanted tickets to the rally.
* In New Hampshire, over 2,300 new supporters joined the campaign just this week leading up to the rally and more than 650 new volunteers signed on to help the campaign.

NCSteve wrote on December 10, 2007 3:36 PM:

And, satire aside, it wasn't a "gut feeling." Unlike the current squatter in chief and Hillary, Obama had actually a) read some damned history and b) had the training, intelligence and reasoning powers (a/k/a "judgment") to draw correct lessons from history. In this case, he saw clearly that, a) as Robert Wilson Lynd put it, "[t]he belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions" and,
b) "that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

For Christ's sake, just because you haven't been sleeping in proximity to a President or pushing pork and fluffy feel-good bills through Congress for a couple of years doesn't mean you are incapable of making a reasoned, intelligent, well-informed and, not-so-incidentally, correct judgment about foreign policy, particularly when you frakkin' majored in it in college. Indeed, the most recent available evidence would tend to indicate that sleeping in proximity to a President and pushing pork and fluffy feel-good bills through Congress for a couple of years is actually detrimental to your ability to make such judgments.

vena wrote on December 10, 2007 3:36 PM:

People, wake up! Experience counts! If your toilet is broken down, do you want somebody who has a lot of experience fixing it or someone who is totally new in the scene.
-----------------------------------------
What if that somebody who is the supposed expert, was part of the reason the toilet broke down in the first place?

Desider wrote on December 10, 2007 3:36 PM:

Hey look folks, TPM wasn't exactly friendly to Bill claiming he came out against the Iraq War, wasn't terribly friendly to Hillary in Kindergarten-gate, pulled the "strong *AND* experienced" out of her campaign video as some kind of anti-Obama attack, and pointed out that she was almost down to even in the 4 state polls (which considering they're sampling 400 people each with 5% margin of error shouldn't be taken too seriously). Why is it that the pro-Obama crowd can only criticize Greg & Eric as pandering towards Hillary? Compared to the typical Republican scandal, nothing that exciting has happened, so I don't expect them to jump up & down screaming. Even on this one, Greg acts surprised that Hillary seems more positive in a NY Times poll - so why exactly are you beating up on him? And really, these guys have to write *something* to be moderately interesting even if it's not exactly calibrated to offend no one and balance the razor's edge of impartiality.

BionicWoman wrote on December 10, 2007 3:38 PM:

Hillary is smarter than you think. She knows that she has to attack to show her strength. Then, she stopped it - because it was for show.

Of course, many of you think that what you see is all there is. Nothing is that simple.

I want just one person to tell me how Obama is going to get us out of Iraq.

Yeah - I didn't think anyone could. He hasn't bothered to offer a solution. He's to busy performing with Oprah.

After he loses in the primary - he can go on to be a talk show host.

BlueDog wrote on December 10, 2007 3:42 PM:

Hillary is running an amazing campaign. And that's why Obama's last hope is Iowa. Hillary's crushing everywhere else and nationally.

TPS wrote on December 10, 2007 3:43 PM:

It is funny that people are complaining that TPM and Greg are somehow biased towards Hillary. As an occasional reader here I find exatly the opposite. Obama has so far received extremely positive media coverage. Almost all of the commentators here are Pro-Obama and they are always complaining if there is any news that is even remotely positive for Hillary Clinton.

I find that Greg is quite even-handed in reporting both positive and negative news about all of the candidates. What I find is that Obama supporters want 24 hour positive news about Obama and 24 hour negative news about Hillary. If NY Times reports a poll that is positive towards Hillary, is Greg supposed to ignore it? When he reports the ABC News/Washington Post poll with the headline that the race is narrowing then that is ok. This is very unfair behavior on the part of Obama supporters.

Greg, I think you are doing a fine, even-handed job. The people complaining are being unfair.

vena wrote on December 10, 2007 3:46 PM:

Barack's plan on Iraq:http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Hillary's plan on Iraq:
http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

NCSteve wrote on December 10, 2007 3:46 PM:

As long as I'm overposting on this thread, I might as well come to Greg's defense, too. I think a lot of times people mistake haste--which is the essence of doing a blog like this--for bias. Here's what the NYT says:

"Hillary Clinton was viewed as running the most positive campaign of the leading Democratic candidates. About seven in 10 Democratic primary voters said she has spent more time explaining, four times the number who said she has spent more time attacking."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/new-nytimescbs-poll-explain-dont-attack/

The first sentence does not follow from the data described in the second. That is, the fact that Hillary, who's been running the longest, only recently went negative would naturally mean that "she spent more time explaining." That doesn't mean that "she's viewed as running the most postitive campaign" riht now. Maybe that conclusion is warranted by the data they are still sitting on, but not by what they said the results were.

But damn people, if I were trying to blog aobut stuff coming in from about fifteen different sources before it became old news, rather than analysizing with the benefit of hindsight, would I have caught the non sequitur reading this article cold? I honestly don't know.

john mccutchen wrote on December 10, 2007 3:48 PM:

People, wake up! Experience counts! If your toilet is broken down, do you want somebody who has a lot of experience fixing it or someone who is totally new in the scene.

Vena...I guess you aren't a Hillary supporter!

Call a plumber

The most experienced candidate in 2008 is not Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Romney in any case. It's Mr. McCain, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson who have the longest résumés. Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Obama, meanwhile, are both betting that this is another crossroads, like 1960, when Americans are hungry for a leader who will refocus the nation on the path ahead. Frank Rich 12/09/07

gqmartinez wrote on December 10, 2007 3:49 PM:

Funny. It's clear that Greg and most of TPM are leaning against Hillary when you read what they say. However, they provide on average reasonably balanced coverage. Yet any post that doesn't shine a negative light on Hillary is considered pro-Hillary bias. Its pretty embarassing to read people say that over and over again despite almost all of the positive coverage Obama receives, and lack of critical analysis (i.e. Krugmangate). I don't consider this place biased in a certain way. But it's revealing that people make every non-negative Hillary post into a reason to trash Greg and Eric.

The comments section here have become a joke and this thread epitomizes that. Repeated uses of "Mrs. Bill" by certain folks is sexist and offensive. That no one seems to object to that and similar statements is also rather revealing. This place used to be enjoyable. Not so much anymore.

Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:50 PM:

The Shillaries sure are running scared now.

Feel their fear
Feed their fear

Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:54 PM:

"attacks" - with quotes. Nice.

john mccutchen wrote on December 10, 2007 3:58 PM:

Mrs. Bill

Hill Shill and retired Hack Andrew Young was quoted as saying that "Bill Clinton is as black as Obama"

No he isn't. But who cares about Bill Clinton?

He's not running for president. Mrs. Bill is. Does anyone seriously contend that Bill Clinton qualifies his wife to be the President of the US?

Answer is obviously "yes"

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 10, 2007 3:58 PM:

For what little my opinion is worth, I am an entheusiastic Obama supporter, and I do not think that the coverage here is especially biased to Clinton. I agree with Desider, TPS, NCSteve and GQMartinez that the charges of bias are misplaced. Indeed, I think that Desider's specific examples of posts critical of Sen Clinton demostrate rather elegantly that such complaints are unfounded.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 10, 2007 4:00 PM:

Of course, that last comment of mine regards only the charges of bias against Greg and Eric specifically. Obviously certain combox respondants bring very obvious biases to their posts, but that is true on all sides of the argument.

CalD wrote on December 10, 2007 4:11 PM:

Clinton has had one luxury none of the others have been able to afford for a lot of this campaign. She didn't have to attack anybody to get noticed and as long as their stuff was bouncing off her, it was to her advantage not to notice them either. It's only lately that they've finally succeeded in dinging her enough that she really had to slap back very hard, and that's still been mostly confined to the early states.

Beyond that, other than an opportune swat here and there, most charges of "negativity" on Clinton's part mostly seem to boil down to her playing up her greatest strength, which also happens to be the other two main contenders' biggest soft spot. That's just good marketing.

This really strikes me a pretty civilized primary race so far though, as Democratic primaries go. Certainly there have been a few shenanigans all around -- Edwards in particular was getting pretty aggressive there for a while -- but when I think back to this point in 2003, my god was it getting ugly out there. Al Gore wasn't particularly gentle on Bill Bradly in 2000 either as I recall.

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 4:18 PM:

Just to toss in my two cents, I didn't think this post was indicative of any sort of bias on Greg's part.

dajafi wrote on December 10, 2007 5:05 PM:

FWIW, I deplore Hillary Clinton and her substance-free, essentially status-quo politics. But I don't think her campaign has been particularly "negative"--though I also think anyone who sees her as the recipient of "dirty campaigning" from Edwards, Obama et al are in for a fainting spell or two once they see what real slime looks like from the Republicans. None of the candidates have stood out to me as taking false or unfair shots at their opponents.

I'd add that if anyone is biased on this site, it's Kleefeld--not Sargent.

slb wrote on December 10, 2007 5:08 PM:

The comments section here have become a joke and this thread epitomizes that. Repeated uses of "Mrs. Bill" by certain folks is sexist and offensive. That no one seems to object to that and similar statements is also rather revealing.

Oh, I object, I just haven't felt it was worth the effort to take people to task for it, because they're not going to listen anyway. The use of such epithets says far more about the speaker than it does about their target anyway.

Early on, I found Obama an interesting prospect, but the shrill behavior of his supporters here has completely put me off. I will vote for him if he wins the Democratic nomination, but it won't be with much enthusiasm.

only me wrote on December 10, 2007 5:17 PM:

if 7 in 10 Democratic primary voters don't take note of Mrs. Clinton's attacks on her opponents, primarily Mr. Obama, the Democratic party truly is doomed.

lestatdelc wrote on December 10, 2007 5:24 PM:

I second what TPS said up-thread. The coverage has been pretty even-handed here by TPM and Greg about the horserace.

Just keep doing what you have been doing Greg.

Grant wrote on December 10, 2007 7:29 PM:

About seven in 10 Democratic primary voters said she has spent more time explaining, four times the number who said she has spent more time attacking.

Good to know. And good to see that one candidate at least understands that there is some real voting to take place after those miserable Iowa caucuses. Go Senator Clinton! Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 7:46 PM:

So Greg Sargent leads with the headline favorable to Hillary. Then he buries as a note the fact that in the states where Hillary is actually actively, visbily campaigning and is advertising, Obama is viewed as the most positive.

This is shameless favoritism. At lease be honest and rename the site: "Talking Points for Hillary Memo." But but but, then it would have no credibility. Exactly.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 10, 2007 7:54 PM:

Thanks to John McCuthen for the link to the SF Chroncile article.

One very telling item there:

"Clinton and Obama will hold nearly simultaneous fundraisers in Los Angeles, with the Illinois senator planning a $25-to-$50-per-ticket rally expected to draw thousands to the Universal City Walk amphitheater almost at the same time the New York senator plans a $250-a-head event across town at Social Hollywood, a restaurant and club."

Once again, Obama embraces "the people" and Hillary screens and picks her crowd. Is this what people mean when they point to the differences between a real Democrat (Obama) and Republican-lite (Hillary Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton)?

Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 7:57 PM:

Grant, read the update and weep. Hillary is viewed as more negative in every state where she is appearing in person and in ads. The momentum is really shifting away from Hillary, big time.

random wrote on December 10, 2007 8:06 PM:

Greg said: "Do those posts count as pro-Hillary too?"

No one has accused Greg and buddies, EC or TPM of not reporting on all the candidates. The favoritism comes in how the report. This post is a classic example. Greg posts a headline that says Hillary is viewed as the most positive candidate. He adds a little update that says in fact the headline is not true in every state where Hillary is actually campaigning and airing commercials. This is VERY biased and they know it.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)