Worth about 1/10 of an eyebrow raise now. I’d still rather that she consult a dead Eleanor Roosevelt than a live Dick Cheney.
Is that what you tell people at the cemetery who are visiting graves of loved ones?
Trying to work out an issue or solve your personal problems by imagining what an admirable historical figure might have thought about it is totally, totally unheard of.
I did not read Woodward’s book, and this is the first I’ve heard of this. If it was some kind of thought experiment or something like “think about this person you admire and why you admire her, and imagine what she’d say to you,” then it seems kind of non-controversial. Woop-de-do. If she thinks about Eleanor Roosevelt the way a lot of people think about the dead (e.g., “my dad watches over me from heaven”) then I think that’s silly but not that unusual for religious people. If we’re talking about a John Edward talk-to-the-dead kind of thing, then that’s a bigger deal.
Woodward has largely been a hack since just after the Watergate expose. Never more so than when he spent most of the Bush II admin with his nose in Dubya’s junk.
As opposed to talking to a mythical sky fairy that we learned about in a Bronze Age fairytale? :dubious:
Here’s something that might put this all into proper context :chuckle:
The problem with finding lying so easy is that it becomes a habit, even when it’s totally unnecessary:
The Clinton spokesman excuse is about as lame as it gets.
That’s the best you got? Really?
That’s an incredibly weak “lie” – some of her grandparents were born (in the 1880s!) right after their parents immigrated, so she thought of her grandparents as immigrants. I couldn’t tell you where most of my ancestors in the 1880s were born.
He didn’t say it was the best he’s got-- I think it was meant to be the most recent.
But yeah, not much of a issue. She can dodge that one by saying “grandparents” can also be used for a generic term for one’s ancestors. I would say this is less of an “issue” than Rubio’s claim that his parents fled Castro’s Cuba when they, in fact, came here a few years before the revolution.
Sure it’s weak, but it’s just more in the drip, drip, drip of negative stories. CNN has that prominently displayed on their site, with the headline that Clinton “misrepresented”. Alone, it does nothing. Combined with everything else, it just further cements the impression voters have of her.
Which is a pretty good impression.
Name recognition. And if you don’t believe me, Nate Silver:
You’ll notice that almost all the Republicans have something like 30-50% of voters with no opinion. If they make a good impression, Clinton will be left in the dust, since 45% already don’t like her and aren’t likely to feel any better about her between now and Nov. 2016.
Yes, obviously if a Republican candidate makes a good impression and runs a strong campaign they have a chance to win (but “left in the dust” is hyperbole – I’m not sure if the Republicans, electorally, can do much better than GWB did). I’m optimistic that none of the Republicans are capable of both making a “good impression” and winning the Republican primary.
GWB’s favorability was like 52%, tops. Give us a candidate with a 65% approval rating and he’ll put up 1988 numbers.
LOL. Tell us about a candidate with a 90% approval rating! Would they win? How about a candidate with a 10% approval rating – could he/she win?
None of the candidates that have announced (or are thinking about it) have any hope of an approval rating in the 60s during the campaign. Not a chance in hell.
I’ll call that a prediction.
Feel free! Are you making a counter-prediction? Do you seriously think any candidate has a chance during campaign season at an approval rating in the 60s?
A chance, yes. John McCain has been above 60% before. And as an article on 538.com points out, Mccain was uniquely able to distance himself from Bush, ending the election with a 52% approval rating:
Problem was, Obama was in the 60s:
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm
But Clinton’s probably stuck around 47-48. Opinions of her have been fixed for some time as a candidate for President. If a Republican can merely achieve McCain-like popularity circa Oct. 2008, they’ll do just fine. And 60s isn’t out of the realm of possibility if it’s a fresh face that runs a great campaign.
That’s favorability, not approval – and I didn’t see McCain’s over-60 approval (or favorability) rating (during campaign season) in your cites. But good find on Obama – I wasn’t aware that it was that high during the campaign.
Obama’s a special case, though, as many have pointed out. If the Republicans have an Obama-level candidate up their sleeves, then they’ll easily win (as would the Democrats). But that doesn’t happen often.
I still think there’s not a chance in hell any of the Republican candidates are able to get through the primary with a rating in the 60s.
I’m not saying Hillary is a cinch to win – I’m optimistic, but it’s way too early to be anything more than just optimistic. But it’s ridiculous (and pointless) to be making predictions about those kinds of favorability ratings, which are extremely rare and which will very obviously lead to a win.