You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
HatinÂ’ on Hillary: N.H. Dems lambaste Clinton
2006-08-07
MANCHESTER, N.H. - Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And heÂ’s never seen anything like it.

“Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.”

No prizes for guessing which presidential front-runner drew these remarks in focus groups. But these weren’t Republicans talking about Hillary Clinton. They weren’t even independents. These were ordinary, grass-roots Democrats. People who identified themselves as “likely” voters in the pivotal state’s Democratic primary. And, behind closed doors, this is what nearly half of them are saying.

“I was amazed,” says Bennett. “I thought there might be some negatives, but I didn’t know it would be as strong as this. It’s stunning, the similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments they have about her.”

Bennett runs American Research Group Inc., a highly regarded, independent polling company based in Manchester, N.H. HeÂ’s been conducting voter surveys there since 1976. The polls are financed by subscribers and corporate sponsors. He has so far recruited 410 likely voters in the 2008 Democratic primary, and sat down with them privately in small groups to find out what they really think about the candidates and the issues.

His conclusion? “Forty-five percent of the Democrats are just as negative about her as Republicans are. More Republicans dislike her, but the Democrats dislike her in the same way.”

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.”

Satanic.

And: “Political wh***.”

(Note: I donÂ’t usually like reporting such personal remarks, but in this case you can hardly understand the situation without them. I have no strong personal feelings about the senator.)

There are caveats. Any survey can be inaccurate or misleading. And 55 percent of ARGÂ’s sample was either neutral or positive about Sen. Clinton. Thirty-two percent currently say they plan to vote for her in the primary.

But Bennett says heÂ’s never before seen so many N.H. voters show so much hatred toward a member of their own party. HeÂ’s never even seen anything close. He believes top national Democrats are missing this grassroots intensity. Instead, he suspects, they are blinded by poll numbers, which give Hillary a big early lead based on her name recognition.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, agrees. “There is far more anti-Hillary sentiment in the Democratic Party than the pollsters understand,” he says. In the race for the nomination, “she is ripe for plucking,” he says.

Sen. ClintonÂ’s team could not be reached for comment.

New Hampshire is small, but itÂ’s a bellwether state with clout. Its primary probably holds the key to the Democratic nomination. And New Hampshire, alone, swung from Bush to Kerry in Â’04.

ItÂ’s hard to see any Democrat winning the White House without carrying the state in the presidential election. And itÂ’s hard, right now, to see Hillary carrying the state.
Posted by:mcsegeek1

#15  That isn't negative. It is the truth.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-08-07 17:28  

#14  NS-Yuck!!! A bust only the New York art crowd could love.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-08-07 14:39  

#13  When political elites put a populist in power, thinking that the populist will serve the elite interests, things often blow up in the face of those elites, with the newly anointed figure pursuing his own agenda which is often antithetical to what the elites wanted.

The German aristocracy in late Weimar Germany leap to mind - Hitler was the populist that they sought to "use" to restore the Reich. It blew up in their faces.

So leaps to mind the American left with the Clintons.

No, I'm not comparing the Clintons' policies to Hitler, for their isn't a comparison to make, and anyone who says there is can be properly named an extremist.

But in a similar fashion, the cultural elites here in the U.S. chose their charismatic populist thinking that he could be their trojan horse for getting their agenda done in America. Instead, he ended up screwing over the party in the long run. WJC was as likely to throw a Dem to the wolves as a Repub, if it would further his own career.

Dems, particularly hard left ones, have been so burned by what they perceive (rightly in many cases, IMO) as betrayal by the Clintons that they either distrust them or are openly hostile.

Apostasy is worse than paganism, I guess.
Posted by: no mo uro   2006-08-07 14:29  

#12  The really good news is that she has all of the money already donated to her by the blind elitist lefties like Soros. She will run, and she will win the nomination. Then, the cancer inside the democrap party will consume it.
Bub bye democraps.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-08-07 14:29  

#11  Hitler wasn't terribly bright, though.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-08-07 14:24  

#10  #7 Senator Clinton is a bright, ambitious .... with the wrong ambitions

As was Adolf Hitler
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-08-07 14:18  

#9  Nimble you just put me right off my lunch. Thanks alot.
Posted by: mcsegeeek1   2006-08-07 13:52  

#8  It's all because of Hillary's immense Sexual power. Women are jealous.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-07 13:51  

#7  Senator Clinton is a bright, ambitious woman with the wrong ambitions. While it is possible she is doing New Yorkers good by representing them in the Senate (I've not followed her voting record), she is entirely too elitist and lacking in the necessary people skills to run a successful national campaign. While no doubt charming on the individual level, even when she only had to appear as Bill's Wife she became a detriment the moment she opened her mouth in public. There are lots of elitists out there; most are smart enough to confine there endeavors to fields where this is an asset. However, like her fellow senator John Kerry, she will not be able to back away from her ambition until the two of them have led the Democrats ever further from the goal of returning to power, or even influence.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-08-07 13:44  

#6  Between her and Joe Lib the Donks are going to self destruct before the primary.

And that Satanic picture of her still frightens me.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-08-07 13:34  

#5  So, its not just me that feels this way.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2006-08-07 11:53  

#4  And New Hampshire, alone, swung from Bush to Kerry in Â’04.

That's because of the continuing influx of Massholes.
Posted by: Xbalanke   2006-08-07 11:43  

#3  At first, I was going to say they'd copied Joe's comments, but then realized everything is lower case.
Posted by: Jackal   2006-08-07 11:38  

#2  (Note: I donÂ’t usually like reporting such personal remarks, but in this case you can hardly understand the situation without them. I have no strong personal feelings about the senator.)



Everything before the but is a lie.
Posted by: DoDo   2006-08-07 11:32  

#1  The problem with Hillary is she has the same ethics and devotion to truth as Bill with none of the charm.

I had a friend in the Secret Service and he said every second word out of her mouth was f***. She also spent a great deal of time bullying the "little people" on the White House staff.

Al
Posted by: Frozen Al   2006-08-07 11:28  

00:00