Maybe Bill Clinton should stay home
There's a new poll out today from the Wall Street Journal/NBC News that shows support for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has remained tight nationally, with Obama edging ahead within the margin of error. There's good news in the poll for Republicans -- voters seem to like John McCain more than they like the Republican Party in general, suggesting a tighter race than the Democrats are hoping for.
But a more interesting nugget is buried deep in the poll. It seems that the more voters see of Bill Clinton, the less they like him. The poll shows a significant shift in his approval rating from a year ago. In March 2007, some 48% of those surveyed had a positive view of the former president, and 35% had a negative view. Now his negatives outpace his positives, 45% to 42%.
Over the same time span, Hillary Clinton's positive numbers rose from 39% to 45% while her negatives remained static, sliding up from 43% to 44%.
As for Obama, the more voters saw of him -- or, at least the more they learned about him -- the more they liked him. In March 2007 his positive numbers were 37% and his negatives were 17%. But some 26% said they were "neutral" about him and 20% said they didn't know -- nearly half of those surveyed. Now, Obama's positive-negative numbers are 51% to 28% with only 18% neutral and 3% undecided.
There. Something to talk about over your morning coffee (West Coast) or lunch (East Coast).
-- Scott Martelle



Bill should disappear or is he #9's replacement?He' probaby upset that Eliot got to pick her first!!!
Posted by: petesb | March 13, 2008 at 09:20 AM
Dear President Carter and Vice President Gore:
This following is an email I sent to the DNC. I sincerely urge each of you would get involved in this situation.
[QUOTE]If the democratic party doesn’t understand why votes count, in Florida no less, then we are truly, truly lost. Do we need Jimmy Carter to come and oversee elections in THIS country now? What the hell!?!
I don’t care what Florida’s republican politicians did to tick off the DNC. I don't care what any politicians did to tick off the DNC. Voters deserve to have their votes counted. Voters in Florida went out in record numbers and VOTED in good faith. Voting is the cornerstone of democracy. And what a pathetic way to rationalize giving Obama an advantage - not counting votes in Florida. Where have I heard this before?!?
This is voter suppression, and I don't care who is suppressing it or what their excuses are - IT IS WRONG, and we all know it.
I wish Al Gore would jump in and take charge of this issue. He may be the only person with the credibility and neutrality to resolve this situation.
Besides, do you think voters in Florida and Michigan are going to be fine with being disenfranchised and vote for either democrat in November? Can we PLEASE stop shooting ourselves in the foot and savaging our own party and principles?!?
When democrats start playing fast and loose with votes so openly, something has gone very wrong. I think Howard Dean is being a complete ass about this. He should be more concerned with making sure voters are heard than shutting them out with stupid gamesmanship and "rules." It's NOT the voters fault all this BS went down the way it did. They showed up in good faith and VOTED.
I’m starting to think McCain deserves to win if Democrats are this hopelessly stupid and lost.
Respectfully,
Teri B . . .[/QUOTE]
[B]You can email Carter and Gore at: [email]carterweb@emory.edu[/email] and [email]info@carthagegroup.com[/email] [/B]
No matter which side you're on in the battle, if you're a Democrat, you know better than this, because we know what it's like to suffer because votes were suppressed and dirty-butterfly-ballot-tricks were used.
Seriously, have we completely lost our souls?
Posted by: Teri B. | March 13, 2008 at 09:21 AM
Maybe they both should stay home.
Posted by: ArchiesBoy | March 13, 2008 at 09:29 AM
A lot of people find Barack Obama a good deal more likeable than Hillary Clinton. I am one of them.
Posted by: Nick M | March 13, 2008 at 09:34 AM
:) Again, if you look at positive approval of Hilary and Obama, they are identical statistically within the margin of error.
One thing that it is interesting though is that Obama's likability did not translate itself in the positive rating. As it looks from the number, he can not justify numerically that he has a better chance than Hillary in any way.
Dead Heat. :)
Posted by: meg | March 13, 2008 at 09:40 AM
NOT MAYBE. "BUBBA" should stay home!
Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | March 13, 2008 at 09:41 AM
We'll see more and more of Bill if HRC wins the presidency; which is highly unlikely given the magnitude of people who dislike her more and more...
Posted by: WeC | March 13, 2008 at 09:45 AM
We all like Obama, sure. But when Americans realize how much money he's going to cost us, they will not like him quite so much.
Posted by: mary | March 13, 2008 at 09:48 AM
You know, I am trying to cut through all the media spin, the off-handed comments and the accusations and just focus on two people and their two resumes. Afterall, we are trying to hire someone to be the CEO of our country. Someone with experience, someone with fortitude, intelligence and whom will work really, really hard for every American out there. For anyone to say that race and gender are not factors in this campaign or in the US is to be, well, out of touch. So, that said, how do we look at these two people fairly (without filters for race or gender and without nasty pointless comments) and pick the best candidate to beat McCain and win back the White house? Race is a factor, as is evident when prior to Senator Obama's arrival on the scene, African Americans, showed a strong support for Senator Clinton. Then, almost immediately, 80+% of African Americans threw their support behind a candidate with less experience, but who speaks beautifully. How could pretty speeches turn such a strong supporter base to a new guy? Also, there are many men (and women, oddly enough) who, when asked flat out if they would ever vote for a woman for President, say no. No reason given, even if she had a better resume. So, that's gender bias. Ok, that said, we still need to cut through the clutter and the crap being flung by both sides and really figure out who we want to get things right and on track for our country. Just electing someone "likeable" who will "be a uniter not a divider" may just get us what we got last time we heard that (ie - Bush, for all you really young folks) - and is that worth the risk? Only each one of us can answer that for ourselves, after honestly researching the candidates' resumes. This decision and election is too important not to.
Posted by: Sunny Florida | March 13, 2008 at 09:54 AM
Al Gore has credibility ????
Posted by: Steve C | March 13, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Bill Cinton is an allegid sexist. Be this true or false I am still offeded when I see Bill Clinton looking at a women.
President Clinton's impeachment helped Mr Bush become president.
Hillary is a hero, no doubt. But she accused Arafat of attacking President Clinton to get the New York jewish vote for the NY senate. That caused the violence to start back up between Israel and the Palqastinians. New York has more Jews than any other city in the world. Even though I'm a Pennsylvanian red neck I have compassion for the plight of the Palastinian, people.
Posted by: mike | March 13, 2008 at 10:10 AM
If the Democratic Party can run thier own Primary, how can they expect to run the country? Maybe McCain is the answer........
Posted by: Barry Dickinson | March 13, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Ok, now lets flip it. To what degree will Bush being being a vocal McCain supporter help/hurt him? Should he just "stay home" as well?
Posted by: mjb | March 13, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I SAY BRING MITT ROMNEY BACK INTO THE RACE. HE IS THE ONLY TRUE TRADITIONAL AMERICAN IN THE RACE. HE IS HONEST, CAPABLE AND LOVES HIS COUNTRY. MAYBE ALL THE OTHERS SHOULD GO HOME AS BILLARY SHOULD.
Posted by: O.VESTAL | March 13, 2008 at 10:20 AM
If Obama had won Michigan and Florida, Hillary and her supporters would be talking right now about how those states weren't playing by the rules the DNC made, and thus would have to wait until the general election to vote. How on earth can you argue that Michigan's primary vote should count, if Obama wasn't even on the ballot?
Posted by: Tom O | March 13, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Hey Teri B. Did you actually say that Al Gore has credibility? First he takes campaign cash from bddhist monks (Foriegn Nationals) then say's that there is no controlling authority, then has foisted this faleshood of "Global Warming" (Its just stopped snowing here in No. Mich. for the twentieth day in a row), he allows mining on his property in Tenn. which is poluting the nearby streams with lead, and you call him credibile? I must say he's definitely more credibile then HRC!
Posted by: RangerRon | March 13, 2008 at 10:20 AM
"A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Malcolm served on the Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four."
Father of four books? And author of 10 others? Total: 14?
Don't you just hate nit-pickers?
LMK
Posted by: lawrence kelly | March 13, 2008 at 10:22 AM
I must admit that I was never a President Clinton fan while he was in office, but the last seven years under the current administation have caused me to reconsider. History may show that he wasn't all that bad. I doubt, however, that his influence will greatly affect the campaign. People will judge a candidate's value on their ability to win the presidency and run the country, not on who they were married to.
Posted by: Jean Chevreille | March 13, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Hi Mary!
What money is Obama going to cost us, exactly? Is it the trillions of dollars he plans to spend on a war without end in Iraq? Oops, that's McCain, sorry. Is it the trillions of dollars lost in the subprime mortgage blowout and its damage to the economy? Woops, that's Bush. Oh, I know! You're talking about the money Obama's going to spend on his new tie for his inauguration! Whoa! That WILL be expensive. He might even buy a tie clip as well!
Posted by: Charlie | March 13, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I have a nausea feeling when I see Bill Clinton on TV, for my health, I switched to other station. I am ready for female president, but not for Hillary because I don't want Bill Clinton back to WH. Also, the more I watch her campaign strategy / tactics, the less respect I have for her. Susan Power (Obama ex-advisor) called Hillary "monster" .. thanks Susan, you spoke my mind.
If Clintons get the nomination, I will vote for McCain.
Posted by: Katy | March 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I can care less if Bill shows his face or not.
Posted by: JP Sherwood | March 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Right on, Teri B! Whomever at the DNC decided that not counting votes is a "fair" idea should be fired and publicly flogged.
Nick M. - electing a president because of likeability is ridiculous. I've always had to prove myself via a resume when I went out for a new job. Why should the presidential election be different. Hillary's credentials are better and she's been in public service longer than Obama. She's better equipped and her husband ain't bad either. I'd love for him to be her sounding board in the White House. Bill may have some made some errors in personal judgement, but he was an excellent president and the stock market reflected that during his tenure. We all had more money in our pockets! Pres. GW Bush is "likeable" and I wouldn't mind having a beer with him, but he's a disaster as president. I'm OVER likeable - we need a dedicated, proven, time-tested leader.
Posted by: Lea | March 13, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Bush: Terror Master
McSame: 100 years more of above with Iran War coming
Hillary: Again will to stop Bill's new Whitehouse scandals.
Don't make the world believe you can not choose right president where as you can kill others.
COLOR/Sex is no more issue in most of the world including Religeous Pakistan. GROW UP and continue to be World Leader by taking Leader Decisions not CowBoys.
Posted by: kg | March 13, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Both Hillary and Bubba should have stayed home. I simply do not understand why people are voting for the Clintons to go back to the whitehouse. John Edwards was the most appropriate candidate and they did not vote for him. Do you guys seriously want the Clintons back in the whitehouse???Hillary lies about her experience and she is such a phoney...I can't believe these peolple are supporting her....I think McCAin will be the better choice. As for Mr Obama, I do not think the white people are ready to put a blackman in the whitehouse. As for Hillary, McCAin will win easily, I am a democrat and I know many other democrats who will not vote for her, but rather vote for McCain or will not vote.
Posted by: Rajah Kahn | March 13, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Hillary has also proven that her poll numbers start going down as soon as her plane lands in a new state.
Posted by: Paul | March 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM