My Blog List

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Pantsuit Could Cost Democrats; More Hsus Also Drop


Doubt you'll see this story get much traction as the Clinton machine has most of the press in their own personal lockbox.

Recall this item from August. Anyone ever hear from Dave Crooks again?

Hillary Clinton 'could cost Democrats dear'
A leaked Democratic poll has suggested that Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner in the race for the party's presidential nomination, could lose the 2008 election because of her "very polarised image".
Translation: Republicans can't stand the sight of her and Democrats only will vote for her to spite Republicans. They can't stand her either, but really, do they have a choice?
The survey by the Democratic pollsters Lake Research indicated that both Mrs Clinton and Barack Obama, second in the race, trailed Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front runner, in 31 swing congressional districts.

Former President Bill Clinton whispers to his wife Senator Hillary Clinton
The private memo, leaked to The Washington Post, painted what researchers described as a "sobering picture" for Democrats who believe that President George W Bush's disastrous favourability numbers almost guarantee they will capture the White House next year.

All polls show that Democrats are much more popular than Republicans. But when the names of individual candidates are used, the gap narrows considerably.

"The images of the two early [Democratic] favourites are part of the problem," the memo said.

The leaked poll found that Mr Giuliani, a centrist Republican with liberal stances on issues such as abortion and gay rights, leads Mrs Clinton by 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the swing districts.
Democrats, of course, are in fear, and just don't want to talk.
"We're not commenting on this poll," said Daniel Gotoff, co-author of the memo accompanying the Lake Research poll. "It was leaked and obviously not by us."
These people never shut up, but when it comes to discussing how unpopular The Pantsuit is, remarkably they dummy up.

I wonder why?
Frank Luntz, a leading Republican pollster, said: "This poll reveals what grassroots Democrats have been concerned about. Hillary is their choice ideologically but not necessarily politically and they're afraid she could lose.

"Democrats want to win more than anything else and they will compromise on policy to achieve electability." Mrs Clinton, he said, prompted a series of perceptions that could damage her.

"She never admits she's wrong. There's a lack of candour and a harshness to her. She doesn't have any of the typical challenges of a female candidate but that is in itself a challenge.
One major problem the story neglects is Norman Hsu, Mrs. Clinton's criminal fundraiser. The media largely wants this story to go away, but there are many more Hsus to drop, I'm sure.

Curious new details today.
Last fall, as the Nevada governor's race was heating up, Clinton agreed to help raise money for Democrat Dina Titus, a prominent party leader in a state that holds a key early presidential caucus. Clinton arranged for Hsu, at the time a little-known New York apparel executive with no apparent reason to take interest in Nevada politics, to give Titus $5,000 on Nov. 3, according to a person with knowledge of Clinton's fund-raising.

And in February, when former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack ended his own White House bid, he was about $450,000 in the red. A month after dropping out, Vilsack endorsed Clinton, and Clinton agreed to help him retire his debts. (Both insisted there was no quid pro quo.)

Over the next few months, some of Clinton's biggest fund-raisers gave Vilsack checks, including Hsu, who kicked in the maximum allowable contribution, $2,300, on May 3 after attending an event organized by Clinton's campaign, Newsweek reported this month. An associate of Hsu's, Paul Su, chipped in $1,000 on the same day.
Hmmm.

More on Hsu at A Blog For All, Hot Air.

UPDATE: I was reminded that Paul Su appears on the original list of donors as compiled by Flip Pidot.

No comments: