New York Times Hits Senator Clinton

I'm not committed to Senator Clinton but this piece in today's paper strikes me as just plain bullshit; unverified by facts, fueled by innuendo that could hurt Dem. chances in 2008.

With all this said... How true is this idea that Hillary Clinton's (or anybody's) nomination will hurt Democratic Congressional aspirations?

Vulnerable Democrats See Fates Tied to Clinton
MANHATTAN, Kan. — Nancy Boyda, a Democrat who ran for Congress in this district last year, owed her upset victory partly to the popularity of the Democratic woman at the top of the ticket: Kathleen Sebelius, who won the governor’s seat. Now, with a tough re-election race at hand in 2008, Ms. Boyda faces the prospect that her electoral fate could be tied to another woman: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Hasn't it occurred to the New York Times that Republican support and ownership of the Iraq War, their efforts to privatize Social Security, and their impotence on healthcare could sway congressional outcomes more than how the Republicans hate Hillary?

Why is the news media so unwilling to focus on national issues, instead of talking about personality issues that are irrelevant to the nation or the world?

House Democrats do not like to discuss the idea of reverse coattails for fear of giving it too much credence and angering the Clinton camp. But they are privately nervous about what Mrs. Clinton’s nomination might mean in Republican-leaning locales where they made gains in 2006 that were crucial to their becoming the majority.

Democrats say they have not polled on the issue, though a private survey that surfaced this year found that the nomination of either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama could cut into support for House Democrats in tough districts.

In the absence of polling, how does anybody know if it's really Hillary that would be "pulling down" Democrats in Republican districts? Most polls that I've seen show the Dems on top; the generic Democrat for president trounces the generic Republican, the Republicans are divided. Yet, the test case for a New York Times, conventional wisdom-setting article is a historically right-wing Republican district in Kansas, a state the Dems probably won't win in 2008, anyway.

Wouldn't it be safer to say that Dems will have a difficult time holding onto seats in such places as Kansas, rather than printing, with no evidence, that any particular Dem presidential nominee will lose us seats in bastions of Bush Republicanism ?

This article is more evidence of how far the Republicans have pulled the national political debate in their direction.. Rather than fretting that -*gasp*- HILLARY will get the nomination, shouldn't we be happy that the public has finally started to see the light on Bush, the Iraq war, diplomacy and just about every major issue that affects the general public and the world?

Rather than worrying about what card the Republicans will play against us, we need to be preparing to take tie them to their ridiculous and dangerous positions.