Tim Russert, who moderated the Democratic Debate at Dartmouth, New Hampshire a week or so ago, had John Edwards as his guest on Meet the Press today. He asked Mr. Edwards once again the same question he asked him at the debates about all troops being out of Iraq by 2013.
Mr. Edwards gave his reply again. Evidently Mr. Russert has a problem understanding an answer. It has become a habit of Russert to ask questions of non events. He then asked Mr. Edward a question concerning a remark his wife made and put the remark up on the screen. Mr. Edwards then had to tell Russert his question was different than what he put up on the screen.
It has become evident that Russert has let his Republican leanings show when interviewing his guests. He often promotes the self serving statements of the Republican party. Now, it is the Republican hype that Senator Clinton can't win in the general election and he interjected some of those comments to John Edwards. Instead of focusing on what John Edwards would do if elected president, he talks about Senator Clinton. Tim Russert has a way of bringing discredit upon his profession. The previous moderators of Meet the Press must be holding their breath. Journalists need to start talking about the future when interviewing candidates, that is what the election is all about.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
30% of Americans "definitely would" vote for Clinton
The latest ABC/ Washington Post poll shows that 30% of Americans have made up their mind that they will definitely vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008 if she is the nominee. 28% say they would strongly consider voting for Hillary. 41% say they would not vote for her.
If the 30% number is accurate, then Clinton is well ahead of fellow competitors when it comes to having firm supporters. The next candidate out of both Republicans and Democrats to come close to Clinton's 30% is Republican Rudy Guiliani with 17% of people saying they "definitely would" vote for him. Rudy is also higher than Clinton on the question of would someone "definitely not" vote for him. He has 44% while Clinton, as mentioned earlier, has 41%.
This may not seem significant, but it does show something very important. Clinton is often painted by Republicans as being unelectable. Well, according to this poll, she would probably win over Guiliani rather convincingly. The poll also shows that Guiliani arguably has more negatives than Clinton. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is this: Republicans are vastly underestimating Clinton; they really have no idea what they might be getting themselves into.
If the 30% number is accurate, then Clinton is well ahead of fellow competitors when it comes to having firm supporters. The next candidate out of both Republicans and Democrats to come close to Clinton's 30% is Republican Rudy Guiliani with 17% of people saying they "definitely would" vote for him. Rudy is also higher than Clinton on the question of would someone "definitely not" vote for him. He has 44% while Clinton, as mentioned earlier, has 41%.
This may not seem significant, but it does show something very important. Clinton is often painted by Republicans as being unelectable. Well, according to this poll, she would probably win over Guiliani rather convincingly. The poll also shows that Guiliani arguably has more negatives than Clinton. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is this: Republicans are vastly underestimating Clinton; they really have no idea what they might be getting themselves into.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)