RECENT POSTS
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
- White House: We’re Not in the “Immediate Gratification Business”
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Setting the Bar Low with Non-Facts
January 02, 2008 4:11 PM
The campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton has started re-writing history so as to make it seem that she never had a chance here.
On Sunday, she told George Stephanopoulos on THIS WEEK, "When I started here, I was in single digits. I mean, nobody expected me to be doing as well as I'm doing in Iowa."
I don't think I know a single person who didn't expect Clinton -- an able politician, the most admired woman in America according to Gallup, and a partner in the strongest Democratic political machine since Mayor Daley's -- to do as well as she's doing, which is to be in the thick of things.
But more factually, as for starting in single digits, her campaign cannot point to one poll in which she was in single digits.
They send as back-up THIS POLL taken more than a year ago in which she was polling at 10 percentage points.
But that was long before she "started here."
And while I may not have been a math major, I'm fairly certain "10" is not a single digit.
Today, the charming Terry McAuliffe, her Campaign Chairman, told Fox News, "I think if you look from when we started this, when we got into Iowa, we were in single digits, 20, 25 points behind John Edwards who had been here for 6 years campaigning."
Again, her campaign cannot point to one poll in which she was in single digits and 20-25 points behind Sen. John Edwards, D-NC.
As backup for that one, they point to an poll taken by Hardstad in October 2006 -- long before she declared her candidacy -- when Clinton was polling at 16%, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was at 13%, and Edwards was at 36%.
Rick Klein has more on Clinton's campaign damping down expectations HERE.
This is the kind of behavior that makes you wonder what they know that we don't.
-- jpt
January 2, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (9)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Hey stephen: that's a great name for a band..."The Clinton's (sic) and the Socialists". Sure beats "The Dead Milkmen."
Posted by: sophillyfatz | Jan 3, 2008 8:47:14 PM
If Hillary loses Iowa, Democrats LOSE 2008 because she is now damaged goods...
If Hillary WINS Iowa, Democrats LOSE 2008 because she is damaged goods, and the entire primary process has already been rigged by the DNC to hand her Nevada and Michigan.
When the Clinton's and the Socialists are finally purged from the Party, Democrats may actually become the Party of the Avergae American again...
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 2, 2008 11:51:01 PM
All the Lib s are liers, after the Primary Hilary will say se never said the things she is saying, she flips more then a pancake
Vote NO for the Libs!!
Posted by: spock | Jan 2, 2008 8:05:34 PM
Pretty funny stuff. I've got a video of her saying she was ahead in the polls from sometime in July. She was talking about national polls versus republicans, however, I think.
Posted by: JedReport | Jan 2, 2008 7:26:38 PM
Sen. Clinton is really hedging her bet. By lowering the bar, should she lose in Iowa she can say: "No big deal, we didn't expect to win." BUT if she were to somehow pull out a win in Iowa, she can claim the title of "Comeback kidette."
Posted by: James Danley | Jan 2, 2008 6:18:15 PM
What "they know" is that they are in a weak second-place (possibly third) going into the caucuses tomorrow. When they have a poor showing they'll say that they were expecting as much. Still playing the political games Billary?
Posted by: sophillyfatz | Jan 2, 2008 5:04:09 PM
Nice hindsight Jake. Name recognition isn't popularity. Just last spring, she had extremely high negatives, and whatshisface likened her to satan. Plus, newsflash: SHE'S A WOMAN. This was hers to lose. But rather than underperform, she overperformed. Was she ever an underdog? I don't know. Call it embellishment, but don't they all do that?
Posted by: cordelia525 | Jan 2, 2008 5:03:45 PM
Frankly, the more I see/hear of Hillary these days, the less I like her. A shame, considering that when Bill was running I was one of those folks who would actually have been more comfortable voting for *her* rather than him.
On the other hand, the more I see and hear of John Edwards, the more in depth I examine his platform and voting record, and the more I learn about the man himself, the more sure I am about caucusing for him.
Posted by: Sandra | Jan 2, 2008 4:50:47 PM
Managing expectations. They must know that Edwards and Obama are ascending and are, therefore, preparing for a possible disappointing finish.
Posted by: DKNY | Jan 2, 2008 4:26:56 PM
Post a comment
