As the early stage of the race for president heats up, support for Sen. Hillary Clinton appears to be cooling. A majority of Americans now have an unfavorable image of her, a new Gallup poll released today shows. Her current 45% favorable rating is one of the lowest Gallup has measured for her since 1993.It appears the Democrats are facing a dilemma. Mrs. Clinton has revealed herself to be as unlikable as I've always found her, often coming off shrill and playing catchup to Obama, offering the lame me-too business on any topic under the sun, the latest being the pathetic Imus circus. She's like a deer in the headlights on the Iraq war issue, trying to stave off the lunatic fringe elements of the party, which pretty much appears to be the base these days.
Her lead as frontrunner for the Democratic nod has narrowed to just 31% to 26% over Sen. Barack Obama. Former Sen. John Edwards comes in at 16% and Al Gore 15%.
"The recent decline in her image appears to be broad-based, as it is evident among most key subgroups," Gallup reports.
In the latest poll, conducted April 13-15, 2007, more Americans say they have an unfavorable (52%) than a favorable view (45%) of Clinton. As recently as February, her favorable rating was 58%.
Obama, as noted earlier, has his own problems now coming off that disastrous appeareance in Wisconsin the other day. Edwards, he of the spa treatments and $400 haircuts, is lost somewhere in between the Two Americas, desperate to latch on to any issue.
So what seemed ludicrous just a couple of days ago, the notion John Kerry could run again, doesn't seem so outlandish.
On the upside, the GOP should take note here and go on offense. The Democrats aren't exactly shining in Congress or the Senate. Sure, they control the media spin, but the absurd antics of Nancy Pelosi going to Syria and the witch hunt atmosphere involving Alberto Gonzales aren't exactly endearing the public to them, not to mention their insistence on surrendering the War on Terror and fleeing Iraq in defeat.
UPDATE: More at Hot Air.
The upshot is that her 38-19 lead over Obama two weeks ago has crumbled to 31-26. I can’t think of anything she’s done recently that would inspire a backlash like this, so I’m throwing it open with an earnest, non-rhetorical exit question: What gives? If it’s a sampling error, how did they bungle the sample so badly as to achieve negatives across the board demographically? Or is this simply a question of familiarity with the Glacier breeding contempt as the campaign wears on?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.