August 16, 2007

We like Underdog Hillary, not Dominatrix Hillary.

Glenn Reynolds notes a new poll that shows Giuliani beating Clinton by 7 percentage points, 47 to 40%. They were only one point apart a month ago and have long stayed within 3 points of each other. Glenn's theory:
[S]he's dropped because of attacks from Barack Obama and John Edwards. But if those rather mild attacks make this much of a difference, how will she do in a real campaign?
Here's my theory. In the last month, she's widened her lead over the other Democrats and now looks like the inevitable nominee. That's made her boring and also stirred up some realistic thinking and fears about what it would be like if she actually became President. She was more appealing back when she was struggling against Obama and Edwards. It's not their attacks that have hurt her recently. It's that they have failed in their attacks, and she has become dominant.

We like Underdog Hillary -- we first warmed to her when we found out about Bill and Monica -- not Dominatrix Hillary -- remember this Spy Magazine cover from February 1993?

48 comments:

Mortimer Brezny said...

There is a much more recent political cartoon that is much funnier than that cover. It depicts Hillary in a dominatrix outfit, holding a whip, modeling for Bill, as he says, "That's it, Hillary. I know what guys like..."

ricpic said...

Oh Hillary, whip me! beat me! Oh Hillary!!

Revenant said...

I live in southern California. I've yet to personally hear anyone say they want Hillary for President. Personal anecdotes count for next to nothing as evidence of broader trends, but I just can't shake the feeling that she'll lose big in the actual Presidential race.

That said, it is way too early for polls to mean much of anything.

Joe said...

There's always a difference between who you would vote for theoretically and who you would actually vote for. (This is why I never vote libertarian.)

SteveR said...

"We" ?? You gotta frog in your pocket?

Actually I like former U. S. Senator and full time Chappaqua, New York resident, better.

Harkonnendog said...

Being The Man from Hope's victim/wife will only get you so far. She's shrill, charmless, and unattractive. It worked for Nixon, I guess.

jane said...

Hill doesn’t need a whip with Bill- I imagine she uses a choke chain and Kibble carrot treats, in private. But in public she's gotta make herself into an underdog. The clintons are such a lovely dog and phony show.

Spengler's Ghost said...

The screechy voice will cost her 2 points once people start paying attention. The screechy voice combined with the hectoring (don't worry, it's coming) will cost her 4 points.

AJD said...

Site meter down today? Or is your own lack of, uh, satisfaction the cause of this completely lame (and unoriginal) post?

The girls in high school who always talked about sex never actually got any. Remind you of anyone, Annie!

SuperDave said...

"Mistress Hillary" as a phrase does have a nice ring to it.

Maybe the Democrats are being too hasty in their judgements on Abu Ghraib.

The Drill SGT said...

Hillary is Nixon lite.

Folks don't like her
folks think she would be tough on ____
folks don't trust her much
folks think she is competent
folks think she's better than the other Dems

bottom line, much of her support in the primary and the general will be against her opponent.

Richard Fagin said...

WE like underdog Hillary?

What do you mean we, communist scum?

I do not like her with a fox. I do not like her in a box. I do not like her here or there. I do not like her anywhere. I do not like her populist scam. I do not like her, Prof. Ann!

dick said...

Mr Fagin,

You are for sure speaking to the choir in my case - and she is (**spit**) my senator.

EnigmatiCore said...

Maybe it isn't about Hillary, but about Rudy?

He's been climbing in the Republican polls in various states (such as Florida).

She's been climbing in Democratic polls too, but I can think of an explanation which would explain all of the movement being seen (in GOP polls, Democratic polls, and head-to-head polls). Hillary has been improving/Obama and Edwards tailing off among Democrats. Meanwhile, Rudy has been (in this theory) managing to assuage some GOP types who were of a mindset to not vote for him/stay at home. Since Hillary has been swaying people who were already choosing the Democrat in head-to-head matchups, her gains among Democrats have not improved her standing overall. But Rudy, turning anti-Rudy/stay-at-home GOPers into pro-Rudy pollees, has improved both in GOP surveys and in matchup surveys.

Maybe it is not all about the woman. Maybe the guy has something to do with what is being measured.

EnigmatiCore said...

ajd, attacking someone over how much sex you think they got in high school?

My God, how sexist and condescending do you have to be to think that would possibly 'work'?

And if she got it all the time, she'd be a slut then, right?

But you fancy yourself a feminist, I bet. The best part is that the world sees you for what you are, and laughs derisively.

Seven Machos said...

Everybody knows that your self-worth is measured by how much you got laid in high school. But, honestly, AJD, you can do so much better.

EnigmatiCore said...

"But, honestly, AJD, you can do so much better."

On what are you basing this?

Seven Machos said...

Just my basic optimism about humanity, I guess.

Bissage said...

There's usually a lot of pathology tucked into the spew from AJD, but his 5:26 might be his personal best for give-aways.

Apparently he considers it the mark of sophistication to have spent his time: (1) listening to high school girls talk about sex and (2) determining that these girls weren't actually having sex, as if that proved them somehow deficient.

In his fevered soul, he has become a high school girl and he hates himself.

Congratulation on such a stunning achievement, psycho-boy.

Don't go digging any pits in the basement, now. It'll just get you in trouble later on.

Revenant said...

You are for sure speaking to the choir in my case - and she is (**spit**) my senator.

Count yourself lucky -- I'm stuck with Boxer and Feinstein. :(

EnigmatiCore said...

You must be really far to the right if you are bemoaning Feinstein. Didn't she just cross the aisle to let a conservative judge get confirmed? She's a liberal, but a moderate reasonable one.

Paddy O. said...

I'd rather be stuck with a good conservative rather than Feinstein, but I respect her. Even voted for her. Mostly because the CA Republican party is committed to being idiots.

I disagree with her on a lot of issues but I think she isn't just a partisan or single issue hack. Her fine introduction of Condi Rice at the beginning of the confirmation hearings was a very good moment of bipartisanship.

I don't agree with Feinstein, but I respect her. And that's something I can't say about a good many other Senators.

Trooper York said...

I don't much care for the Underdog
Hillary...but the Mighty Mouse Hillary could be kind of cute..in a surreal Andy Kaufman kind of way.

Pissed Off Hillbilly said...

I hate Hillary, but that cover is kind of hot.

Revenant said...

You must be really far to the right if you are bemoaning Feinstein. Didn't she just cross the aisle to let a conservative judge get confirmed? She's a liberal, but a moderate reasonable one.

First of all, I'm not a conservative. Saying a liberal sometimes agrees with conservatives doesn't mean that I'm going to like her more. I disagree with many conservative positions too.

Feinstein is a left-winger who achieves "moderate liberal" status primarily by embracing restrictions on free speech -- flag-burning bans, internet censorship, McCain-Feingold, etc. In other words, she "moderates" leftist policies I hate with right-wing policies I hate. Bad on free speech, bad on gun rights -- even bad on fourth and fifth amendment rights, if you view the FISA and Patriot Acts as hostile to those.

What's to like? Oh joy, she let two conservative justices get confirmed without filibustering. Happy happy joy joy.

Mutaman said...

Within a few months, Cristyne Lategano will be a household name. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Talk to me about Rudy's numbers then.

Revenant said...

You're a few years late to the party with the shocking news that Giuliani cheated on his wife, dude.

Simon said...

Pissed Off Hillbilly said...
"I hate Hillary, but that cover is kind of hot.

Eh. I think her real cleavage - now - is a bit more titillating. So y'know that's the consolation prize if Hillary gets elected - on the one hand, we're all in deep crap, but on the plus side, it'll be kinda neat to have a President who's easy on the eye. Now if she could just make Tina Fey her veep (and find a way for her to keep that adorable angry and condescending thing)... ;)

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Bissage: Is the next line It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.?

dick said...

I'll trade you Hillary and Chuckie for Boxer and Feinstein - maybe. Tough decision there.

EnigmatiCore said...

Which brings up an interesting question. Which state has the worst pair?

I should like Pennsylvania, since neither are wing nuts of either flavor. But one is insane and the other inherited Chafee's mantle of the dumbest box of rocks in the Senate.

Alaska's contingent is pretty lame. No, very lame. Any other nominees?

Revenant said...

Which state has the worst pair?

At the risk of disappointing all of the local lefties who are convinced I'm a lackey of the Republican Party: I nominate Alaska, home of the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of pork and corporate corruption.

Simon said...

Illinois. Dick Durbin and Barack Obama (D-Chi.).

Palladian said...

"Which brings up an interesting question. Which state has the worst pair?"

Must...not...make...cleavage...joke...

Seven Machos said...

That's why I love Palladian.

Eli Blake said...

Some observations:

1. The idea that she is the inevitable nominee at this point-- see John Conally, Howard Dean, etc. Oh, and also at this point in 1991, George Bush Sr. was so far ahead of Bill Clinton in the polls that he looked like he might win fifty states in 1992.

2. Further, it is hard to find any dirt on Hillary Clinton that we haven't already been exposed to ad nauseum. Hence she has high negatives, but they are unlikely to go any higher.

3. Dirt on Giuliani is buried right now. But Democrats know about it. I know about it. You can be sure that Hillary's campaign people (and for that matter the campaigns of most other candidates) know it. Some people have heard of Bernard Kerik. Few outside of the Palmetto State know about Thomas Ravenel. Very few have heard of a much more devastating name-- Alan Placa. But if Rudy is the nominee, he will be pretty much married to Kerik, Ravenel and Placa by the end of the campaign.

Hiring a mobster, a drug dealer and a child molester. Charming, what still has to come out about Rudy, and it will certainly lead to some hard questions about his judgement. But barring some new but yet undiscovered scandal (which with the way the GOP has clung to the Clintons for a couple of decades would be like suddenly discovering a new continent), Republicans have long since fired all their shots at Hillary.

4. Also, if Hillary is indeed the nominee, Republicans may have shot themselves in the foot on at least one issue. After painting her as cold, calculating and ruthless for the past fifteen years, they'll have a tough time convincing a lot of people that she wouldn't be tough enough to stand up to bin Laden. That right there undercuts Rudy's perceived strength.

Seven Machos said...

Eli -- The problem with Clinton is that she cannot be painted as a new Democrat, the way her husband was, and she has exactly none of his jovial and wonderful charm. She can't give a speech, either.

The reason that Bill Clinton won, in addition to the new and the charm, was that he won Southern states and was lucky enough to have Ross Perot as a goofy but effective sucker of votes. What Southern states will Hillary win? Who will sponge votes this time?

I don't see Hillary Clinton beating any of the top-tier Republican candidates except Romney.

Revenant said...

Hiring a mobster, a drug dealer and a child molester. Charming

Clinton will probably get some mileage out of Placa... unless Rudy brings up the even bigger favors her husband did for a different child molester.

I doubt she'll get much out of Ravenel, either, since nobody outside of South Carolina gives a rat's ass what happens in South Carolina. But she might use him in some attack ads... and hope Rudy doesn't bring up the big-time Democratic drug dealer her hubby pardoned.

And I guess she might call Kerik a "mobster", if she wants to get sued by him. She might point out his various criminal activities, but they're just white-collar stuff.

And does Hillary -- whose two brothers were paid over $300,000 between them in exchange for Clinton pardons of convicted criminals, and who got Susan McDougal to take the fall for her by flat-out refusing to testify to the grand jury about the Clintons (again, in exchange for a pardon) -- really want to start playing the "who has the most white-collar criminal friends and associates" game with Rudy Giuliani? That should be fun to watch. You can pretty much count on one hand the number of Hillary's friends and associates who haven't been under indictment at this point, seems like.

Bissage said...

"Bissage: Is the next line It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.?"

RAA, I sure hope not. I’d like to discourage that sort of thing.

I really suspect that some of these commenters/trolls are genuinely and dangerously disturbed.

Here on the internet, they are free from their personal history. They can become whatever they want. They are free from their social present. From their bodies. Looks don’t matter.

Their limits are only the limits of their heart and mind and their ability to type.

And just look at the kinds of nasty decisions they make.

Perhaps the reason they’re not out doing horrible things in the real world is because they can’t.

They’re too afraid of getting caught.

Now that’s scary.

Richard Fagin said...

Before you get all that upset about DiFi, I heard my senior Senator referred to as "Phil Gramm in a skirt."

Please change the second to last line of my Dr. Seuss impression to "I do not like her health care plan." That seems to rhyme better and make more sense.

...and Dick, I'd take your **spit** Senator any day over your OTHER Senator. A more vile, grandstanding camera-hog with no morals or principles would be hard to find than nasty Chuck - oh, wait, there's always Governor Spitzer! Jeez!

Sen. Clinton's "support" is difficult to determine only from polls at this point. It would be rash to attrubute early favorable polls to "underdog" status. There may be other significant factors, including political sabotage. I voted for Jesse Jackson in the 1984 Democrat primary for the sole purpose of sabotaging the Democrats. There was no way to help President Reagan, as he as certainly going to win the Republican nomination. What beter way to help the President than to help nominate unelectable Democrat candidate. Is everyone so sure those kinds of things aren't in play in Sen. Clinton's case?

I did pay for that act when I got a call from the Dukakis campaign the night before the 1988 primary. I had to explain to the caller that I moved to Texas from Massachusetts to GET AWAY from Mike Dukakis!!

Roger said...

Do I get the impression some democrats are really trashing Rudy early? Hmmmm---more evidence that he's the guy they are worried about.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Roger:
I don't know about democrats trashing Giuliania, but Vanity Fair is trashing his wife.

dick said...

Mr Fagin,

Once again you are absolutely on target. Chuckie is my idea of one of the absolute worst and Spitzer is even lower on the scum scale. My rep is not much better. The people of this state would vote for a rattlesnake if it ran as a LLL dem and told them what they want to hear. You don't have to follow up and DO anything - you just have to say you will to get elected in this place. In fact you are better off if you don't do anything cause then they will just keep hoping you will do what you say even when you don't over and over and over again.

Revenant said...

Vanity Fair is trashing his wife.

Does Vanity Fair actually *have* any readers who aren't already planning to vote for Hillary Clinton?

Eli Blake said...

Revenant:

Go ahead. Bill, not Hillary, issued the pardons you mention. So going after her will be as ineffective as the attacks on George Bush Sr.'s record (Iran-Contra, breaking the 'no new taxes' pledge and the sour 1991 economy) were when his son ran. Rudy hired Placa personally.

Further, you'll find that Bill Clinton never did pardon Cong. Reynolds for child molestation. He commuted his sentence for bank fraud (an unrelated case of bank fraud) because he felt the sentence was too harsh.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Eli,

Go ahead. Bill, not Hillary, issued the pardons you mention.

Is anyone going to believe that Hillary's brothers took kickbacks in exchange for Hillary's husband pardoning people, and Hillary wasn't involved? Heh... sure, right.

But hey, let's say voters do buy that. Is Hillary going to get up in front of the cameras and say "my husband Bill will have absolutely no role in my administration"? Yeah, right -- she'd lose 20 points in the polls. The only reason anyone's even *dreaming* of electing this woman President is that she's married to Bill and everyone assumes they work as a team.

No, she'll have to stick with Bill. She'll have to acknowledge that he'll be intimately involved in her Presidency. And that puts her right in bed with every drug dealer, child molester, and bank defrauder her hubby ever took bribes to pardon.

Bill Clinton never did pardon Cong. Reynolds for child molestation. He commuted his sentence for bank fraud (an unrelated case of bank fraud) because he felt the sentence was too harsh.

There's a defense I look forward to seeing. "My husband didn't pardon a child molester for child molestation. The child molester in question also stole money from banks, and my husband only commuted his sentence for the fraud. Because those courts were just too harsh on him.

I'm sure middle class soccer moms will be extremely impressed with that justification. After all, the last thing anyone wants to see is child-molesters being given excessively harsh sentences for their other crimes. I'm sure they'll all agree that eight years is *plenty* of time to spend in prison for thirty felony convictions, and that eleven years would have been just too extreme.

Yeah, right. Giuliani gave a Catholic priest accused of molesting children a job. Bill Clinton put a convicted child molester and registered sex offender back on the streets three years early, either as a political payoff (the reality) or because -- Clinton's version -- he FELT SORRY FOR HIM? Please, Karl Rove's not even doing to have to get out of bed to get a poll boost out of that one.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.