Time Magazine has Hillary Clinton on the cover this week. Surprise, surprise there is nothing really new in the piece. They do the usual rehash of "will she run" "can she win" "what ever will she do with Bill" blah, blah, blah. We've read it all before at least a million times. There are two things that caught my interest, however:
She is the inkblot test of a polarized electorate. In the Time poll, Democrats overwhelmingly describe her as a strong leader (77% ) who has strong moral values (69% ). Republicans by and large see an opportunist who would say or do anything to further her political ambitions (68% ) and puts her political interests ahead of her beliefs (60% ).
In Blue America, they're watching a Lifetime movie about the country's first female President. In Red America, they're watching Godzilla. In one America, she's smart, committed, likable, with strong values and empathy for people like them, and in the other she's an ambitious, callous appeaser. Republicans also think she's a "divider and not a uniter" (52%).
That's interesting. I suppose I spend too much time reading the posts and reactions of the folks over at DailyKos and the Huffington Post because I leave those places with the perception that Hillary is universally hated on both the right and the left. The lefties at Kos and Huffl largely see Hillary as "an opportunist who would say or do anything to further her political ambitions". Hmm. I have felt for a while now that the folks on the extreme left have been driven out of their minds by Karl Rove and the Iraq War. Their reaction to anything Hillary related is vitriolic and more in line with the average Republican reaction to her. These people have completely accepted this negative image of Clinton. But, alas, we mustn't forget they are on the fringe in many respects. It is good to know that most Democrats have not fallen for Rove's manipulations. If you are a Democrat and you agree more with Republicans than you do with Democrats with regard to Hillary Clinton you really need to do some soul searching and figure out why that is.
The other interesting thing from the Time piece:
Her strategists point out that all she would have to do in November 2008 is win every state John Kerry did, plus one. They consider Ohio and Florida her best opportunities. And there is plenty of encouraging news for her in the latest Time poll. More than half of those surveyed—53% —said they had a favorable impression of her; she registered higher than the other most familiar names in the potential Democratic field, Al Gore (49% ), John Edwards (46% ) and John Kerry (45% ). Her negative ratings (44% ) were lower than either Kerry's or Gore's. Edwards generated fewer negative reviews (31% ), but 23% of those polled said they didn't know enough about him to have an opinion one way or the other. In hypothetical matchups with the preseason g.o.p. favorite, John McCain, Hillary is the only big-name Democrat to make a real race of it, with McCain edging her by just 2 points among registered voters. By comparison, McCain would trounce Kerry by 10 points and Gore by 9.
Wow. Just 2 points between Hillary and the crazy John McCain? Really? Hellz Yeah. That rocks. All the nay sayers need to shut up. The Clintons' know what is required to win and they are willing to do it. This is why I love them both. There is absolutely nothing that can stop a Clinton/Clark campaign. All they have to do, again, is hold Kerry's states. That shouldn't be too much of a problem. And pick up OH, FL or AR. This can be done, people.