Friday, September 16, 2011

Clinton Stock Up, Obama Stock Down

(Inhale!) The most popular politician in the nation today is (Exhale slowly) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to a recent Bloomberg National Poll.

“Nearly two-thirds of Americans hold a favorable view of her and one-third are suffering a form of buyer’s remorse, saying the U.S. would be better off now if she had become president in 2008 instead of Barack Obama.”
The Tea Party figures are perhaps the most surprising:

“A plurality of Tea Party supporters -- 44 percent -- say the U.S. would be better off with Hillary Clinton as president, even though 59 percent of those respondents have an unfavorable impression of her.

“’She’s a more stable person who gets results,’ said Joseph Cherney, 67, a retired Republican automotive purchasing worker from Mineral Ridge, Ohio. ‘The president we have now isn’t much of a president because he really doesn’t do anything. He’s pompous and arrogant.’”


dmoelling said...

Hillary has done a terrible job as Secretary of State in a very challenging time (Arab Revolts, Iranian trouble making, etc.)

Some of it may be Obamas fault and poor relations with other Obama appointees, but still she is no distinguished statesman yet.

In fact her only experience was as First Lady, author of HillaryCare, and one term as NYS senator. This isn't much different from Obama. They both benefited from fawning press coverage.

My God, can't we demand that our candidates have some real experience? We did in the Past!

Washington, Grant, Hayes, Eisenhower (Generals)

Teddy Roosevelt (Lots of jobs)
FDR (Sec. Navy, other)
Hoover (Mining Engineer, Author, Relief Organizer)
Truman (Artillery Officer, Retailer, Government)

Even Carter had some (Naval Officer, Governor)

Don Pesci said...

I agree with much of what you’ve said. The Secretary of State is always a creature of the president and on occasion of Foggy Bottom. The point about electing candidates with business rather than political experience is important. We will not be reaching outside the political box for candidates here in Connecticut until the prejudice in favor of candidates with political experience disappears from editorial board rooms. Rigorously applied, this odd doctrine would have squelched the career of, say, Chis Dodd in its crib. Both the Courant and the New York Time almost uniformly frown on candidates who have business rather than political experience. A review of endorsements over the past 30 years would depress both of us. And then, of course, the connection between money and parties has been snapped; most incumbent politicians are self-financing, and they have their own political operations. This weakens party discipline, even as it gives incumbents an insuperable advantage over their opponents, when the opponent is not a politician-for-life. I don’t see this changing.