Skip to main content

Hillary Clinton receives a helmet as a gift from her staff on January 7, 2013 upon her return to the State Department.
Clinton’s Top Career Negative Seen as Benghazi, Pew Poll Shows

Americans cited “Benghazi” as the most glaring negative on former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s political resume, while more than two-thirds approved of her performance as America’s top diplomat, a poll shows.

But if you take the time to look at the poll ...
... you'd see that "nothing" actually outranks Benghazi. Moreover, Benghazi was primarily driven by Republican respondents, 28 percent of whom cited it as Hillary Clinton's top negative.

Keep in mind that this was an open-ended question. Benghazi should have been the top response: It's been in the news more than any other negative, and Republicans are pushing it relentlessly. Nonetheless, "nothing" edged it out.

This poll doesn't reveal her political Achilles' heel. It reveals her strength and resiliency.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That's funny. (32+ / 0-)

    At this point, it appears the Hillary Clinton is very popular and would be elected.  Still a long way to go, but I think the Rs are scared.  

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:33:01 AM PST

  •  Clinton (11+ / 0-)

    I have my doubts still if I am interested in her for 2016, but I recced the diary for general media sucktitude.

  •  She invoked Hitler w.r.t. Putin/Crimea (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjbleo, Aunt Pat, JeffW, catwho, Matt Z

    (and yes, I think the comparison is apt.)

    Any apparent blow-back from that?

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:34:17 AM PST

  •  Rightwingers follow patterns (10+ / 0-)

    And Democrats need to recognize those patterns and exploit them.

    Republicans tend to harp on their opponents' strengths, and try to turn them into weaknesses.

    If the public had an opportunity to look at John Kerry's military record as it compared to GWB's, in an honest way, it would have cratered GWB's attempt to win the presidency.

    So the rightwing's Karl Rove and others conspired to created a false story about John Kerry in Viet Nam.

    And that's why they're going after Hillary here - she actually did quite well with what she had responsibility for.

    General Petraus has acknowledged this recently. If the rightwing is so invested in trying to tear her down over this topic, what I see is that they think it's a strength for her, if approached properly.

  •  Funny to have the option "nothing" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjbleo, Aunt Pat, RUKind

    on the poll. Made me think of the answer to a math test question: What's the highest possible number divided by the lowest possible number?

    If Hillary runs she wins. We can't have a Republican.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:38:25 AM PST

  •  Exactly. The only weakness she has isn't on the (7+ / 0-)

    issues or on her personality. It is the tactical and strategic acumen of Clintondom. I am not quite sure that the top generals in the Clinton Apparatus are very good at reading the modern electorate or modern campaigning. I think Hillary Clinton herself is a good campaigner, but I'm not convinced her people know how to get her from here to the oval office.

    There is also the question of her having the fitness and stamina for a long campaign. Running for president is a physically demanding business, involving a lot of walking, little sleep, constant phonecalls, remembering an extensive amount of data and constant travel. And you've got to be a hands on manager of your campaign if you want it done right.

    We shall see.

    •  That was one of her problems in 2008. (7+ / 0-)

      She wasn't hands-on and her entire campaign was a clusterfuck because no one could decide who was in charge.  Now, she's 8 years older and more tired and she is supposed to work harder than she did in 2008? Yeah, I doubt it.

      President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

      by askew on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:44:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't disagree about her 2008 clusterfuck (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sweatyb, Aunt Pat, catwho, cpresley, RUKind

        but I do not believe it is fair grounds for comparison.  In 2008, her advisers convinced her the nomination would be a cakewalk.  They deliberately built what they intended to be invincible campaign apparati in early primary states, and these organizations clearly grew ridiculously out of control, with too little oversight from Hillary.  

        Once she realized the fight she was in, she seemed to me to be indefatigable.  I thought her stamina was incredible, even when the odds became so long as to be virtually unwinnable.

        It's difficult to imagine she and her campaign would follow the same disastrous blueprint eight years later.  

        Christie is toast.

        by deminva on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:58:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It wasn't stamina it was crazy. (7+ / 0-)

          Remember when she refused to concede after she lost the nomination and was holed up in that basement rally acting like she could still win. I think she went temporarily nuts towards the end of that race or she was listening to some really, really bad advice.

          As for repeating mistakes, I haven't seen any acknowledgement that from her or her confidantes that she was the reason she lost the nomination in 2008. I still see them blaming the media or her team. It was her. She surrounded herself with bad people, didn't control her campaign and was badly out of touch with the Democratic base.

          President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

          by askew on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:01:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nearly 18 Million of the Base Voted for Her. (8+ / 0-)

            Hard to be out of touch with the Democratic base when you get almost 18 million votes from them, roughly the same that Obama received.

            Now, 73% of the Democratic base supports her in 2016 and over 80% hope she runs.

            The base was divided in 2008.  It is united in 2016.  

            •  Sounds like wishfull thinking to me (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Remember how shocked Karl Rove was that his golden child lost Ohio and with it the presidency.  

              If polls were as golden as some like to believe, we could dispense with elections altogether.

              "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

              by blackhand on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:33:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, they were SO WRONG in 2012 (0+ / 0-)

                Only they weren't.

                Waiting for disgruntled kossacks that don't like HRC to launch their own  

                Things could certainly change, but her current dominance is blatantly obvious and we're supposed to be the ones who favor a reality-based approach.

                •  Some of us have higher standards than the typical (0+ / 0-)

                  Repug.  Putting a particular letter in front of your name, in this case a D, is not sufficient to gain enthusiastic support.  Especially at this pre primary stage in the game.  

                  You know as well as I do that the common Joe has near zero say in who runs, or rather who is allowed to run for office and doesn't have the influence to do much about it.  That doesn't mean I am going to sing "happy happy joy joy" at the Plutocrat's pick.

                  The party should take a lesson from Obama's candidacy versus presidency.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice ...

                  "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

                  by blackhand on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:39:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  No, it's not (0+ / 0-)

              But just keep telling me what I think.  It annoys me and when I'm annoyed I tend to be contrary.

              •  Nothing wrong with being contrary. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                But the base is, overall, united this year behind Hillary.  It just isn't accurate to characterize the discontent around her potential candidacy as representing the Democratic base.   There's far more consensus than usual at this time.

                Nobody is telling you what you think, but what you think is not what the base as a whole is thinking right now.

                I think the vibrant primary of 2008 was a wonderful thing for the Democratic party.  I just don't see it happening again this time around and I support the consensus pick anyway.

                •  The problem for me is that it's the equivalent of (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  askew, anastasia p

                  2006 not 2008.  We're being intimidated, pressured, browbeaten into a coronation two full years before the primaries.  Anything could happen in two years except finding out where HRC stands on issues like Social Security I expect.  After all if you tell voters where you stand you just might increase your negatives.

                  I mean WHOA is the machine in high gear or what.  The Clintons don't want ANY chance of ANY opposition of ANY kind on ANYTHING which only tells me that progressives will have NOTHING to say about the campaign or her Presidency, STFU.  

                  So, just call one of those Democratic cats who don't like to be herded, ordered, marched and I don't salute, bow or curtsy either.

                  HRC will get my vote IF she bothers to try to earn it which I doubt she will.

                  •  No, You're Not (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    There's a huge groundswell of support for Clinton; it hasn't been browbeaten.  

                    You don't have to support her or get on board.  Advocate for whomever or whatever you want.  But it's her overwhelming popularity that may end up clearing the deck for her, just because nobody wants to go up against her.

                    She's earned her reputation and credibility with Democratic voters and the public at large.  Nobody is giving marching orders to fall in line.  If it turns out she isn't what voters want, they'll go for an alternative.

                    My concern is that she may choose not to run, which more than anything else, is why a decision needs to come from her by the end of the year, which she has promised.  The party will need time to build up a credible alternative should she decide she doesn't want to run.   Ideally, that process will start now anyway, if there's going to be an alternative to her if she does run.

                    Haven't there been some stirrings that the Maryland governor might want to run?

                    •  B.S. (0+ / 0-)

                      This "groundswell" is being carefully orchestrated by insiders and the media. I hope she chooses not to run, because then there WOULD be grassroots engagement, which is lacking now because we're basically being told we have no options – the choice has been made for us.

                      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

                      by anastasia p on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:17:13 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  And it's going to be different (0+ / 0-)

          now that EVERYONE is being bludgeoned into believing that she is not only invincible, not only inevitable, but that she is the ONLY person who can save us and that it won't be just a cakewalk but a virtually coronation when she declares.

          I already see the "campaign" as more disastrous than 2008.

          Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

          by anastasia p on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:15:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well, if we see some fresh new faces (0+ / 0-)

        around her then perhaps she can still make a good go of it.
        She may not even need to be that good.

      •  Meh (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stude Dude

        I don't think she's that old and tired.  But I do agree that the 2008 campaign was a clusterfuck.

        She felt entitled to the nod, and it showed waaaay too much.

    •  I hear you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stude Dude

      I think the poll is pretty accurate though.

      Clinton doesn't have any major deal breakers about her.  Even if you don't like her or agree with her on this or that issue, you can still hold your nose and vote for her in the general election. Which is a big difference from all of the GOP choices, you couldn't pay me enough money to hold my nose and vote for one of them - some money is way too expensive.

    •  That sounds like being Secretary of State (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, RUKind, brooklynbadboy
      Running for president is a physically demanding business, involving a lot of walking, little sleep, constant phonecalls, remembering an extensive amount of data and constant travel. And you've got to be a hands on manager of your campaign if you want it done right.
    •  She showed huge stamina and fitness as SOS (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, brooklynbadboy

      She has the drive and capacity. She can do it. But she has to surround herself with the right people. Her last campaign manager was a major contributing factor in her not getting nominated. I can't even remember the guy's name now but I can still picture his face and attitude.

      Ahh, Mark Penn. Wonder if he'll do the same to MS that he did to Hilary...

      "Let there be song to fill the air." R. Hunter

      by RUKind on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:13:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  After 4 years as SoS (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lysis, RUKind, brooklynbadboy, Remediator

      where she traveled over a million miles, visited hundreds of countries, and you don't think she has "stamina"?

      Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

      by skohayes on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:22:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I do not know about this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjbleo, blackhand

    The top positive thing got 12% of the votes?

    Shouldn't we have seen a BIG number in some positive category?

    What am I missing here?

    •  The point of this that you're missing (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RichM, Lysis, catwho, RUKind

      Is that they have her "top" negative as one thing, but in fact, when people were polled, more people said that she had NO negatives than said she had any particular negative.

      That's it. That's what you're missing.

      •  Okay (0+ / 0-)

        I see that, thanks.  Loved to have seen a big number on a positive, however.  

        Again, Thanks SmallTown

        •  It was an open-ended question (0+ / 0-)

          I'm sure they got a lot of different responses. Looks like they're giving all the responses getting 2% or more. But the "positive" list, as given, totals only 35% and only 11% said they had no "positive" associations for her. That is 46%, which leaves 54% unaccounted for. Thus, unless there were a lot of "don't know" answers, there were dozens of other "positive" things named by respondents that got less than 2% each.

          Same on the "negative" side, where the numbers total only 38%. Nothing negative got 18%. That's 56%, with 44% unaccounted for. Probably lots of answers getting a few respondents each.

          “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

          by fenway49 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:57:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You have low negatives as long as few know where (0+ / 0-)

        you stand on the issues. If she ever condescends to tell us where she stands on the issues, her negatives will go up.

        •  This is a tired argument. (0+ / 0-)

          She ran for president already and was a senator for eight years, and in public life long before that.

          Her platform was detailed and clear (and progressive) in 2008, and is easily accessible to anybody who actually cared enough to look for it.

          She's also given lots of speeches just this year that touched on key themes that would probably surface in a presidential run.

          I don't actually want her critics to be successful, but I'll say it again anyway:  You want to beat her, stop running against a caricature that voters will dismiss in a heartbeat because they already know the real Hillary and like her quite a bit.

    •  that's one way of looking at it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lysis, fenway49

      another is that she has a variety of things that people see as her top attribute which means that the top one will get a smaller %.

    •  It's hard to distill it down into one word (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, Lysis

      For me it's "Probably not gonna take any more shit from anyone" which doesn't quite have a pithy single word summary.

      Gumption, maybe?  

      I just get the impression that, she is aware that the worst things that could happen to her have already happened (even losing to Obama) and she's not going to let any of that crap happen again.  

      I think my favorite anecdote about the Lewinski thing was that she made Bill sleep on the couch for six months.

      The President.  Had to sleep on the White House couch.

      THAT is gumption.  (Or maybe just positive handling of Bill Clinton.)

      The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

      by catwho on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:42:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am more concerned about her rightwing nonsense (10+ / 0-)

    she was babbling yesterday. She clearly learned nothing from her loss in 2008 and working for Obama. She is still a hawk.

    President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

    by askew on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:42:03 AM PST

    •  War Around the World (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      She's still a hawk, has always been a hawk, learned nothing from voting to invade Iraq except presidents can invade countries if they're hawks.

      No wonder the world within the US sphere of influence has gotten even more warring after her turn as Secretary of State.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:05:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder if the average Republican... (9+ / 0-)

    even knows what Benghazi was actually about.  That would be an interesting poll.  

    What's the difference between the Federal government and organized crime? One's legally sanctioned.

    by FrankenPC on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:42:56 AM PST

  •  Invalid poll. (10+ / 0-)

    There was no pie option.

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:43:04 AM PST

  •  Benghazi also equals nothingburger. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So that's a whopping 33% at nothing.

  •  What the poll reveals is that if you fling lots of (5+ / 0-)

    mud at her, some sticks - for Republicans, who are unlikely to support her anyway.

    She's a strong candidate, and she's so very familiar to most Americans that mud-slinging is less effective.

    Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

    by blue aardvark on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:43:18 AM PST

  •  Still doesnt make her the right person for the job (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Bad Cog, blackhand, Choco8, Jarrayy

    But I guess it'll be time for Thatcher jokes to make a comeback.

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:45:34 AM PST

  •  ROTFLMFAO! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lysis, implicate order

    So what we're looking at here is that Benghazi-because-Darryl-Issa is polling lower than an old 1960s-era Cracker-Jack commercial with Jack Guilford dressed up as a witch, standing in front of a bubbling cauldron, and plucking an invisible "large, red-eyed, no-nosed nothing" out of thin air?

    The illustrious GOP just got out-polled by a fifty-year-old snack-food commercial?

    It really, really gets no better than this....

    Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

    by Liberal Panzer on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:46:03 AM PST

  •  More from Bloomberg: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, Lysis, DocGonzo
    When people are asked to name in their own words the most negative thing about Clinton’s career, “Benghazi” is the most frequent response, cited by 15% of respondents. Among Republicans, 28% volunteer Benghazi as the most negative aspect of her career.
    When, as Jed says, the most frequent answer was "nothing." They should be contacted to issue a correction.
  •  If she runs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lysis, Remediator

    She will clean the GOP's clock.

  •  The positives aren't so hot, either (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blackhand, DocGonzo, greenbell

    Positives and negatives are about even, tilting slightly towards negative, nothing to worry about but nothing to celebrate, either.  What's most striking is that to the poll respondents, HRC is largely an unknown.  Her highest positive is at 12% (SOS), with the next highest being the 8% who view her positively for marrying Bill Clinton.  Such low numbers suggest her greatest strength is similar to Obama's:  she can potentially present a blank slate on to which voters can project their own beliefs.

    Her second highest positive, being Bill's wife, reiterates a point I've been making since 2008:  she is a poor choice for the first woman president, because she has not clearly and unequivocally achieved her status independently.  Our first woman president shouldn't have a husband who is more famous and successful than her, who can be claimed to have blazed her trail to the White House.  We need a self-made woman like Warren would can definitively smash the glass ceiling once and for all.

    Note:  flame retardant is fully deployed.  I don't care if I'm called a sexist for pointing out the ugly truth.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:52:50 AM PST

    •  Edit: (0+ / 0-)

      "We need a self-made woman like Warren who can definitively smash the glass ceiling once and for all."

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:54:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No. You're subdividing her for no reason (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lysis, Subterranean, cpresley

      She's Hillary Clinton, SOS, wife of the 42nd president.  

      If you did a similar poll of Warren, the second spot would probably be "Worked for Obama."  Should that count against her?  I doubt she would have won in Massachusetts without having done that work first; look how close it was with her experience.

      "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

      by anonevent on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:01:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even if Subterranean is subdividing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        How many voters do you think will make the same conclusions?

        "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

        by blackhand on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:37:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How do you conflate (0+ / 0-)

        working in a presidential administration with being married to a president?  That's like comparing a resident under a chief brain surgeon to the brain surgeon's wife.  It makes no sense.

        Or are you suggesting Warren won her position in the Obama administration by having an affair with Obama?  That's rather sexist, no?  Well that's exactly how many people view HRC's record, and what makes her a poor choice as the woman to break the final glass ceiling.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:39:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's how very few view her record. (0+ / 0-)

          I'd expect it from the GOP knuckledraggers, but to see it being advanced by a supposed progressive is remarkable.

          Perhaps you can go on the O'Reilly Factor and bond with Bill over the downsides of a female president.  

          •  So what if Warren was the frontrunner, (0+ / 0-)

            and somebody said, "no, I support Hillary because Bill Clinton".  

            Would that strike you as a little odd?  

            If HRC goes on to become president, historians will note that the first female president had to have an former two-term president as a husband.  It will be a big fucking deal.  Dissertations will be written analysing why Americans couldn't accept a woman on her own, without a strong husband.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:24:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, she'll be remembered as the first one. (0+ / 0-)

              And it won't be minimized by historians because being the first female president of the United States will be a big deal.

              Sure, there will be dissertations written on how women have limited access to power.  They've actually already been written, including analysis on how many women only reached office because their husband was an office holder and died.

              It's a long list of disqualifiers for people who don't want to see women in power.  While you're busy adding to it and claiming it's because you're what, a feminist?  You don't want to see the woman who hasn't really earned it get it and we should instead wait for a real female role model?  

              Most admired woman in America for more than two decades isn't good enough for you?  All those women who want to vote for her must be so misguided.  Let's hope someone can save them from themselves, like the woman who you want instead...who wants Hillary.

              She'd be the perfect president if she could just realize that what she wants is wrong and we know better than her.  Good luck with that.

    •  People still like Bill Clinton. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subterranean, cpresley, skohayes

      Not bad to be associated with him.

      And yes, you are giving a sexist reading to that particular stat, as simple addition shows that more people mentioned something other than being Bill's wife as her top positive.   But that doesn't fit your narrative, which seems to be trying to argue that Hillary Clinton, of all people, hasn't done enough with her life to be seen as her own woman.  

      There's an ugly truth here, but it's not being revealed about Hillary.

      •  It's about being a feminist roll model (0+ / 0-)

        Do we want young girls and women to see that a woman can only be president if she marries a man who coincidentally was a popular two term president?

        The sexism charges don't warrent a response.  

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:34:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's an invalid argument. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          She was already garnering national attention before she even met Bill Clinton. Even when he ran for president, he said Americans would be getting "two for the price of one."
          She was an active part of the administration, and you know it.

          If it was just about her being married to a president, we'd have Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, and Michelle Obama running for president.  It's nonsense.

          Minimizing her accomplishments is not your path to defeating her, but if you want to argue that this lawyer, children's advocate, Senator, and Secretary of State is a bad role model for feminists, go right ahead.  You'll be laughed off the stage.

          •  Plenty of self-made woman pols (0+ / 0-)

            There are plenty of strong, independent female politicians who did not use a husband's career as a stepping stone to power.  HRC wouldn't have been a Senator or SoS if she wasn't married to Bill, and you know it.  She's not a natural politician and showed not the slightest interest in public office prior to marrying Bill.  Her public speaking skills are average, and her management abilities are mediocre (2008 campaign, health care reform debacle).

            Based on the poll results, her second highest positive was her marriage choice.  That perception will beg the question:  did she really break the glass ceiling?

            Say she's elected president, and Bill plays a large roll in her administration.  How many people will question whether she, as a woman, could have succeeded without a strong man to buck her up?  How does that affect her symbolic achievement of being the first female president?  It's going to be a widely held perception whether we progressives share it or not.

            If HRC was the only woman qualified to be president, then this argument would be moot IMO.  But with so many other women who do not have HRC's negatives, the obvious question is, why not one of the others?  Why not a woman who's rise to the presidency cannot be attributed - by anyone - to her marriage choice?  Why not a woman with an unknown husband?  Why are Americans gravitating to the one female candidate who was married to a former two term president?  

            I don't believe it's a coincidence.  I think it's due to sexism, to an inability to trust an independent woman with power.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:38:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He had a strong woman to back him up. (0+ / 0-)

              She'll have a strong man to back her up.

              Almost like they're, ya know, equals or something.

              What, Bill wasn't weaker because he needed Hillary to help him when he was president?  

              Apparently a woman can only be seen as strong if her husband is weak or unknown.  

        •  Screw that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Hillary has always been her own woman- lawyer,  women and children's advocate, US Senator and Secretary of State. If that record by itself, doesn't make her qualified to be president, nothing will.

          The sexism charges don't warrent a response.  

          Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

          by skohayes on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:42:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)
            Hillary has always been her own woman.
            Her views are also significantly more conservative than Bill's.  They are not the same person, despite the tendency of so many to attribute Bill's successes to HRC.

            But we also must acknowledge that she used her husband's career as a stepping stone for her own.  

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:28:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  A "roll model?" (0+ / 0-)

          Do they model bread or demonstrate somersaults?


          “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

          by fenway49 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:01:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  11% "Nothing Positive" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subterranean, bryduck

      Yes, by the same token as this story presents, 11% said "Nothing Positive", almost as many as the 12% that named the top positive. That's practically a tie due to polling artifacts.

      But this diary is almost as in denial of "Nothing Positive" as the Bloomberg story it criticizes is of the "Nothing Negative" result.

      Given Clinton's long and highly visible career, what's most remarkable is that the most common response to her running for president is that "Nothing Positive" vies with "Nothing Negative" as the most common takes on her.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:09:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not surprising at all (0+ / 0-)

        We live in times that are very apolitical and very polarized. I would expect, frankly, a higher percentage of people (mostly Republicans) to have nothing good to say about Hillary. I'd also expect a lot of people who don't think much about her, or politics generally, to demur when asked for something specific. I wonder how many of the "nothing" positive and "nothing" negative are the same people.

        “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

        by fenway49 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:04:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  very nice! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lysis, virginislandsguy, Remediator

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:55:29 AM PST

  •  Well, you have to watch out for Nothing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude

    It's a dangerous beast.

    "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

    by anonevent on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:56:37 AM PST

  •  I see nothing but bad news here... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Lysis, cassandraX, hamm, Bonsai66, cpresley

    ...for the GOP.  Her biggest strength?  Her SOS experience - which includes Benghazi!!!11!  Third biggest strength (after nothing) is the way she handled her marriage during her husbands indiscretions.  So, all of that overt attacks on Faux News on how she is a poor representative for women because of the Clenis is probably going to backfire.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

    by RichM on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:57:43 AM PST

  •  Nothing (0+ / 0-)

    I guess it depends on what your definition of nothing is, according to Fox news nothing is a whole lot of something....

  •  Course the OTHER column also has a "nothing" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bad Cog

    "Nothing" almost won the positive column as well.  What is the great significance of that?

  •  With her being out of partisan fighting for past 8 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bad Cog, greenbell

    years, these aren't great results. She is at her peak popularity right now and those are the positives people come up for her. She handled her marriage to Bill well? That's what we got. Lord save us.

    When she starts campaigning again, those negatives are going to go up among independents and Republicans and her positives don't seem strong enough to stand up against that. If I was thinking about running against Hillary in the primary or general, I'd be thrilled with those numbers.

    President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

    by askew on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:04:54 AM PST

    •  remember 08? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catwho, skohayes, cpresley

      This "unpopular" candidate was neck-and-neck with Obama in the popular vote.

      She'll win the nomination and probably the presidency if she decides to run.

      All the Cruela de Ville-ghazi the right throws at her won't stick. She has been accused by them of murder, coke-dealing, god knows what since 1992--and she's still one of the most admired people on the planet--possibly because of that.

      "This is a center-left country. Democrats can act that way and win. In fact, they must." -- Markos

      by cassandraX on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:21:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not just that, her (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lysis, chujb, Bonsai66, cpresley, skohayes

    experience at Secretary of State is the top positive. So she gets good marks as Secretary of State and one incident couldn't tarnish that.

  •  What did she accomplish as Secretary of State? (6+ / 0-)

    The presidents greatest foreign policy accomplishments (well, IMHO)--getting Syria to give up their chemical weapons and signing an interim agreement with Iran while standing up to warmongers in the Democratic Party---came after she left office. What did she actually do? What are her accomplishments?

    Tyrion Lannister: "It's not easy being drunk all the time. Everyone would do it if it were easy."

    by psychodrew on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:10:05 AM PST

  •  It's a Republican Nightmare (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, Lysis

    She's a known public figure. The jury is not out on her. You either like her or you don't, but you probably aren't on the fence waiting for Rove/Atwater to fill in the blank.

    If Benghazi is the only thing not to have happened in the 1990s that they have got, you can probably tell by the Republican primary field.

    If she is in, I doubt Scott Walker and Jeb Bush run, and the billion dollar borg is fixated on the House and Senate while the Culture Warriors get their top ticket freak.  

    If she is out, the GOP overreaches and everybody runs thinking (erroneously) that she was the only name they had to worry about.    

    There is a pathway for Democrats to win the White House either way.

    I think a lot of Democrats in DC, and in general, want a run-up-the-score candidate and they see one, on paper, in Clinton. The Democratic Party is a bandwagoneering kind of outfit, and there is no Obama. She's possibly the first woman President of the United States, so the transformational figure is her. Not some out-of-the-blue surprise candidate, or the wingnutty white guy from wherever the GOP comes up with.  

    Who beats her? Biden? No. Schweitzer? No. The Elizabeth Warren Allan Grayson mash-up that only exists in people's heads isn't showing up.

    She can beat herself by cracking up. Do I think Hilary Clinton is going to yell "Yeaaaaaarghhhhhh!" on camera and get that looped into a meme? Nope. The exact sort of Villager who gleefully buried Howard Dean over being excited about moving forward would probably help kill the same meme about her.

    If the hits are about her age, or her stamina, or what Clintonista might run her campaign and fuck it all up, I don't see any of that dissuading her from running. It's probably like pouring half a Costco-sized bottle of lighter fluid in the Hibachi.

    I don't like the Clinton school of triangulation, the Democratic hawk schtick for fear of being painted as weak by a bad faith GOP married to actually believing you can bomb someplace peaceful, the austerity, the "if you hear the word "reform" attached to the social safety net or taxation or regulation, cringe, then get mad as you run to get a helmet" stuff. She would not be my choice.

    I'm listening to women I have known all my life, some of whom just don't give a shit about politics, psyche themselves up to vote for Hilary. There was a point with Obama where Obama 08 was bigger than the reality of the man. People had projected themselves on to him. Their values and beliefs. They were invested in the myth of what his being President would be like. The GOP can say whatever they want. The Koch Brothers too. Folks like my elderly mother want to see a woman in the White House. Especially before they die if they are older folks.

    She runs, and it's going to have an effect on everything everybody else does. I'm thinking that Elizabeth Warren is going to be in the Hilary camp so fast that people who dream about her running as some kind of anti-Hilary are going to be shocked.

    I will just expect to be in Hell for another eight years on a bunch of fronts I shouldn't be in Hell over with a Democratic President. If she has the kind of coattails people dream about, she could deliver the kind of House and Senate ranks that might re-define that is possible.

    She might also deliver a Congress that feels obligated to say 'yes' to a lot of shit we won't like, and extends the Democratic era of triangulation and hippy punching a decade or more longer.  

    “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” — Auric Goldfinger

    by LeftHandedMan on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:16:08 AM PST

  •  The poll states "Democrat policies" not Democratic (0+ / 0-)

    policies. That stood out to me.

    Although since it's mostly Republicans who express the negative sentiments that may make sense.

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)! Follow on Twitter @dopper0189

    by dopper0189 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:16:21 AM PST

  •  denial is a river but it's far from Gulf of Gabes (0+ / 0-)
    But Democrats are in denial if they think Benghazi won't be an issue in the 2016 presidential race, should Clinton run.
    A new poll from Pew Research Center and USA Today shows the danger. When respondents were asked to name in their own words the biggest negative for Clinton from her long career in public service, the most common response was Benghazi. Sure, it's only 15 percent who gave that answer, but that's still a lot.
    And it's not just Republicans; Democrats also picked it more often than anything else, with 8 percent listing the attack as Clinton's biggest negative.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:18:58 AM PST

  •  GOP's Got Nothing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lysis, skohayes

    Benghazi is a non-starter except for total right wing loons (who would never vote for any Democratic candidate and are thus totally unimportant in the political calculus.)

    Everyone else is like ... what? What exactly are you talking about? In 2016, Benghazi will be a 4 year old story that really most people barely noticed at the time. The Republican insanity machine has never come up with anything that makes any sense in regards to it.

  •  Stamping the letter B on Hilary's forehead (0+ / 0-)

    We can scoff at the "Benghazi" charge as coming in at less than nothing, but meanwhile, the Republicans have two+ years to put their propaganda machinery to work and in two years it may be as if a big letter B is stamped on Hilary's forehead.

    What Democrats have failed to do, meanwhile, is promote an understanding of the committee's findings that point to problems in the Embassy's decision-making after having been warned. It's hard to do that; it is painful and distasteful to suggest that Embassy staff (i.e. some of who were killed) may have made a mistake in judgment; and it also means overcoming the requirement to reduce everything to a "one-minute sound bite." But Dems have to get out in front of this thing as Republicans have two and a half years and all the media outlets and wealthy donors needed to attach Benghazi to everything a Democrat touches.

    Ginny Mayer, Ph.D. Democrat CA State Senate Candidate - SD-35 (Orange County)

    by Ginny Mayer on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:30:51 AM PST

  •  Hillary would not be my pick. I want better. (0+ / 0-)

    I don't care how many times her ass is pranced out in the spot light,  I am not going to change my opinion on this.  

    Hillary is nothing more than yet another corporate Neo-Liberal.  Her greatest strength is that she is not a Republican.  I want a better Democrat.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:43:23 AM PST

  •  The 2nd place positive view was "Nothing". (0+ / 0-)

    11% listed "Nothing" as the thing about her career about which they had the most positive view.
    This closely followed "Secretary of State" (12%) as the thing of which most respondents held a positive view.

    Still, the 18% who could think of nothing negative beats the 11% who could think of nothing positive.

    The 11% "nothing positive" is probably from the far right, and the 18% "nothing negative" is probably from the far left.

    "For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it." - President Barack Obama, Second Inaugural Address, January 21, 2013.

    by surfermom on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:52:29 AM PST

  •  Also Nothing Positive (0+ / 0-)

    The top "positive" response was "Secretary of State" at 12%, but "Nothing" was at 11%. Given polling error margins and the open-ended nature of the question, that's about a tie.

    So "Nothing Positive" is also the top response to Clinton's career.

    The subjective view of Clinton as "inevitable" works both ways. Especially 3 years from Election Day.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:00:06 AM PST

  •  Please, anyone but HRC (0+ / 0-)

    Isn't there someone else. I don't have the stomach to see/hear the video of WJC trotted out for a year leading up to the election. New blood is what's needed.

    You best believe it does

    by HangsLeft on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:08:46 AM PST

    •  Who have you got? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lysis, Remediator

      I love all the people who complain about Hillary, but the best alternative they can come up with is Elizabeth Warren, who supports Hillary, and isn't running for president. Bernie Sanders? He's an independent, and can't run in a Democratic primary.
      If you want someone more progressive, go out and get them to run in the primary.

      Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

      by skohayes on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:55:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Obliterator" didn't get mentioned? (0+ / 0-)

    It's one of the first words that come to my mind whenever I hear her name.

    Of course, for me it's a negative, but I wouldn't be all that suprised if some folks mentioned it as a positive.

  •  Ok, Jed, yeah, whatever, but Lindsay Graham (0+ / 0-)

    intimated that Hillary Clinton personally led the attack in Benghazi, fire in her eyes, black smoke roiling in the African night, a ferocity in her expression unseen my most others.

    She could have stayed home that night and watched reruns of the West Wing, but no, she had to go out like the craven terrorist she is and subvert freedom in all corners of the globe.  

    What is she indeed but the very embodiment of anti-American savagery?  

    Damn her!  Damn her!

    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

    by Remediator on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:19:14 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site