Hillary's net negative rating

Posted: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:09 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
A brand-new Gallup survey has Hillary Clinton's positive/negative rating in the net negative territory (48%/51%).

Gallup says that Clinton's image has consistently moved into the negative territory as this campaign has progressed.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I like Hillary Clinton. However, I'm really tired of the Democrats fielding a Presidential candidate that can't win the general election. In the 2004 primaries, John Kerry was clearly the best of the field. He get's into the general election and looks like a bumbling fool. So, I have no allegiance toward Hillary. If Obama or Edwards has more "general election" appeal, then that's who I want to win the party nomination. Sorry, Hillary. Your husband was a great President. I'd vote for him a 3rd time if it was possible, but I won't be too disappointed if I don't get the chance to vote for you at all.

Dave M., Miamisburg, OH (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 11:15 AM)

So....Gallup asked a bunch of Neo-Cons, and people who LISTEN to Neo-Cons bad mouth Hillary on the radio all day....if they "thought of her postively or negatively." What did you expect them to say? This positive / negative thing means nuttin', honey!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 11:21 AM)

GIVE IT TIME THEY WE LOVE HER. HILLARY CLINTON WILL BE THE FIRST WOMEN PRESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND ONE OF THE BEST LEADERS THIS NATION HAS EVER HAD. WE MISSED PUTTING INTO OFFICE ONE GREAT LEADER JOHN KERRY, WHO WOULD NOT OF GOT US INTO THE "MESS" WE ARE IN TODAY. WE WILL NOT LOOSE ANOTHER GREAT LEADER AGAIN.

PATRIOT (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 11:40 AM)

Thank you, Dave M. I agree (except, I DON'T LIKE HILLARY!!). Hillary CAN'T WIN !! Move on, turn the page. Edwards or Obama or Richardson. What's so hard to understand ? Do we want to beat the Republicans ? Do we want to increase our Senate and House majorities ? increase the minimum wage ? Bring down the deficit ? Nominate ANYBODY BUT HILLARY !! ANYDODY BUT GORE !! The Democratic Leadership Council has had its day. "Pay to play" is over. It's time for something other than Bush-Clinton-Bush. Clinton loyalists can wait for Hillary's illegitimate son, Zeppo

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 11:49 AM)

Funny, the more I see Hillary, the more I like her. But then, I hated Bush when his approval was 60%, so maybe I am always ahead of the curve.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 11:56 AM)

Anyone presented as the nominee for the Democratic Party will be able to handle the job better than the current administration. Having said that; I still fear that the nation, although proclaiming to have progressed past certain prejudices, will not take a step forward and vote for a female, an Afro-American and/or a Hispanic. These hidden prejudices rise to the top every so often and they are more prevalent than it appears. My choice is Edwards because he does not fall within those three categories mentioned above. If I felt confident that people would vote for the best candidate and not base it on gender, nationality or color, it would be Obama. Call me a pessimist if you want.

Ravine Force, Kissimmee, FL (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 12:03 PM)

J. Merle Stanley, you bring up a good point,was a typical cross section of voters used in the poll or was a targeted group used? I would vote for Hillary although I believe she would energize the core republicans in my state to vote for any repub on the ballot, I still believe Edwards could attract some of the fence sitters that Hillary could not. There is no way I could have voted for Hillary being the good repub I was a few years ago but after 6 years of the current fasist eletists Hillary looks pretty darn good, I have to wonder how many others feel the same,judging from the repub debates I hope I am not alone or this country is doomed. The U.S.A. needs to stop trying to shove democracy down the rest of the worlds throat,if they want democracy help them try to achieve it, if they want some other form of goverment who are we to critize them as long as they leave us alone,maybe the world would look at us more favorably if we quit occuping other peoples countries unjustly and actually tried to focus on terrorists like we said we were. The next president's plate is definatly going to be full I wish them luck.

MK,MO (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 12:08 PM)

I disagree, J. Merle. High negatives are very important to note. And if they are trending one way or the other, that too is important. Right now, its early enough to argue that no trend is critical - but negatives trending upward is something Democrats ought to watch.

Paul Miller (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 12:12 PM)

IMHO - I've worried about this from the start. Regardless of polls, I do not believe that Ms. Clinton can win the general election. In fact, I think that if she is the D. candidate, we'll see a 3rd party that will further erode the anti-republican vote. I believe that if Ms. Clinton is the d candidate, the republicans will win in 2008. Notice I have not said anything about my support of her. I also don't think this has anything to do with Bill. I think that Ms. Clinton is either actively hated or extremely distrusted across a wide spectrum of voters and that makes it a real problem for us in 2008. My goal is to keep the republicans out because I see no R candidate that even passes the sanity test with the possible exception of Ron Paul. He is getting no press so I don't think he stands a chance anyway except as a possible 3rd party split off. On the issues, I also suspect that we will find the abortion topic to be the final decider. Anyone who is militantly proabortion will lose. People will take the Iraq fiasco rather than let abortion take the nation. I've said it before - the ProLife focus groups are one of the 3 most powerful in the country. I am no longer optimistic that we can cure the cancer of republicanism in America.

Independent, Texas (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 12:26 PM)

Just the fact ma'am - "Results for this panel study are based on telephone interviews with 1,007 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted April 23-26, 2007. Respondents were drawn from Gallup's nationally representative household panel, which was originally recruited through random selection methods."

Russell in Maryland (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 12:27 PM)

"Patriot" the only good thing about Kerry was that he wasn't Bush

Kal, NJ (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 12:28 PM)

The poll is important b/c in presidential elections the more likeable candidate usually wins. Someone on MSNBC said it perfectly last night. Hillary has a candidate problem. She's a great legislator/administrator but lacks the charateristics to be an effective exective. Having half of the country NOT like you is quite leap to overcome. It's probably not impossible though. I've often wondered why she even wants to be president. The eight years that she was in the white house as first lady could not have been the happiest times of her life. That being said I think she's smart and has been an effective senator. I'm just not sure anyone wants to re-live the psychobabble of the Clinton era--and let's be honest drama follows the Clintons wherever they go.

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 12:44 PM)

If Hillary is your candidate she will be Bob Doled out of the election. She is not trustworthy, and I know that will be an important issue this election. The Clinton's own political strategist from back in the Bill days said on Fox News tuesday night that "Hillary needs to be brought down". He knows a lot more about her that I do so I'll take his word. If you want to attempt to battle with Fred Thompson, pick a better horse!

Pizza Guy OH (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 1:27 PM)

Paul....just exactly what IS a "high negative," except another expression for "I 'heard' something negative so I'm saying it's a negative"? It's "pollster" HOOEY, and nothing more. If Hillary gets the nomination, she wins hands down, and everybody KNOWS it. Don't worry, she'll be a good President.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 2:02 PM)

Running for President shouldn't be about "popularity." We're not voting for Prom King or Prom Queen when we elect our leaders. Ask the people who "hate" Hillary, and see what answers you get. "I can't stand that woman!" "She's so cold!" "I don't trust her!" "She's so shrill!" We're not looking for a best friend here; we need someone who can move this country forward, who understands the workings of politics, who has the experience, who is strong, intelligent. For those of you who "hate" Hillary, but you are a Democrat, try this: Read what she has had to say about all the issues on which you have definite opinions. Forget the way she looks, the hairstyle, the way she speaks. "Listen" to her words, and see where she stands. Eleanor Roosevelt was not well loved either, and years later we see what a brilliant, involved, capable, and important person she was to this country. But can you imagine Eleanor Roosevelt in 2008 running for President? Talk about negative polls.

Darlene Craviotto (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 2:02 PM)

The Washington pundit corps and the consultants will convince the party regulars that Hillary is inevitable and is the "electable" candidate. All you have to do to know who the Republicans fear is to look at whom they're attacking: Edwards and Obama. Haircut, schmaircut, John Edwards can beat any of the Reagan wannabes that were up there last night AND Fred Thompson. Obama is more of a wild card, but I think he can be highly competitive against this charisma- and intelligence-challenged Republican field. Rove already has a nice, new, Republican henchman installed in Arkansas as U.S. attorney to dig up some old dirt that they can flog to death. He's probably dragging twenty-dollar bills through trailer parks, as James Carville used to say, even as we speak.

JJ in NJ (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 2:08 PM)

Russell in Maryland......so what? Kinda' sounds to me like you're afraid of Hillery, and that you're politicking AND/OR campaigning against her. If you weren't afraid of her, and if you were sure of yourself and your own candidate, whoever that is, you wouldn't have hammer away at a meaningless poll done 8 months before the first primary vote is even cast. (SMILE) Come talk to me on November 5th of next year.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 2:21 PM)

Darlene - I totally agree with you. In 2000, a lot of people said they were voting for Bush over Gore because he seemed like a guy you could sit down and have a beer with (nevermind that he doesn't drink.) He seemed like a normal guy whereas Gore seemed like a policy wonk. Gee, who would I rather want for president - someone who is nice but bumbling or someone who is boring but sharp as a tack when it comes to policy? I think the latter. I would hope that people would have learned from 2000 that just because someone seems like "a nice guy" doesn't mean they can be an effective president.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 2:36 PM)

The latest Rasmussen poll (released today) shows Hillary in a dead heat with GOP frontrunner Giuliani - 45% to 45%. So, she absolutely CAN win and I sure hope she does - given her strength and intelligence. Aside from being the best DEM candidate, she wil also run the best and smartest campaign - note her 2 landslide elections to the US Seante.

Craig Chicago, IL (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 2:52 PM)

I think some of you are missing the point. Someone should feel that the can TRUST they president. Someone should feel that they LIKE the person they are voting for. You can agree with Hillary on all the positions and still not like her and still NOT want to vote for her as they are other choices. I completely understand, just like EVERYONE should, why someone might not like Hillary Clinton!! I like her--but I understand why some may not.

Lewis,, Cincinnati, Ohio (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 3:05 PM)

J. Merle - no, its simply from a poll like the one MSNBC currently has going on the Republicans. Pollsters ask folks whether they have a "positive," "neutral," or "negative" impression of a candidate. The reasons aren't asked, or perhaps asked in subsequent questions. This isn't a science so much as an art, or more accurately pattern analysis. But pollsters have been doing this for a while and analysts look for patterns that consistently repeat and they can apply to new races - like incumbents losing after their negatives hit a certain percentage, etc. Negatives rarely go down, for whatever reason. Low positives can change as voters get to know the candidate. But once a voter says he/she has a negative view of someone, that view usually sticks - at least that's my understanding.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 3:09 PM)

J. Merle Stanley, you put forth a baseless claim that the poll was not scientific and I find evidence (facts) to the contrary and you say "so what"! I am an engineer and I bristle at anyone Republican or Democrat who attacks science and the scientific method and who doesn't live in a reality based world. You then claim the polls are meaningless this early. The polls are very meaningful especially right now because they are being used by the media and the parties to try to winnow out so-called "second tier" candidate from the next debates and big donors use them to decide where to place their bets (contributions). What is meaningful is that any of the sick delusional excuses for human beings I saw in the Republican debate will be a disaster for this country. They don't even pretend and lie the way Bush did in his campaigning about being a compassionate conservative and not being a divider. I would be happy to see Hillary win or any of the Democratic candidates but I am very concerned that the Democrats might nominate a candidate who won't win.

Russell in Maryland (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 3:09 PM)

Darlene: Hillary doesn't have high negatives because she's cold or shrill or a woman. On the left her negatives come from having voted FOR the Iraq War when 21 other Senate Democrats voted NO. This shows up as opportunism. Then, she says she was "mislead" by the White House. I knw there were no WMDs. Why didn't she. She voted for an unjust for out of political opportunism. She's also hedging on abortion to "position" herself. Oh! And she's got a plan to save us from the scourge of "FLAG BURNING" (what a great American!!) That's why many left Democrats won't support her. No problem. Find another candidate. The Democrats have plenty of them. Bill Clinton didn't walk on water. There was a sleaze factor in his Presidency. Admit it. Accept it. Move on. Let's focus on re-taking the White House. Let's find a nominee that gives us the BEST SHOT at re-taking the White House.

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 3:51 PM)

The Gallup Poll results were based on a sample taken just before the Democratic debate, which most MSNBC pundits awarded to Hillary based on her "presidental" responses. This poll is certainly accurate within a MOE of 3% as a snapshot, but events over the next several months will certainly be in play. So a "negative" response can be pretty soft if it is based on a general impression left by right-wing attack radio and memories of the Whitewater witch hunt rather than unfolding details and comparisons of candidates. Hillary won over Upstate NY Republicans despite carpetbagger charges and constant reference to Lewinsky in 2000 and did better in 2006. I think negative impressions will come down in head-to-head campaigning with vulnerable Republican candidates. Anyway, only half of eligible citizens tend to vote at all, so this kind of general poll may include respondents who won't like any candidate and may just stay home in Nov 08. Hopefully most voters will decide that immediate competence in office is so important post-Bush that likeability - whatever that means - will take a back seat.

Tom Dunn, Central Square, NY (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 4:00 PM)

I think Bush beat Gore because more people wanted to have a beer with him rather than Gore. That was really a smart decision. Hope the next election will be about who can do the best job, not whether we "like" them or not. I think we've has enough of the "good old boy" administration!

Connie, Tn. (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 4:34 PM)

So, Sierra 'knew there were no WMDs'. Wonder why Sierra didn't run right to the Pentagon and tell them she KNOWS there are no WMDs? I think they would have laughed at you. Why? Because there were. Most people, and the media, forget that WMDs aren't just nukes. WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. We know Sadaam used them on Iran and his own people. We know he still had them in 1991 during GWI. Why wouldn't he still have them? Turns out he couldn't ship them out completely and 500+ have been found to date. Yes, every administratiion makes mistakes and I don't like many things the GWB has done. But it's this kind of name-calling, "you can't be right because you are the other party", BS that is ruining this country. Discourse is great, it's what we were founded on, but make it intelligent discourse on BOTH sides of the aisle. State a case with facts or ideas, not just "we're better because you messed this up". Tell people WHY you will be better. Give ideas and solutions. Maybe then we'll get things turned around no matter WHAT party is in charge.

Robert, Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 9:08 PM)

Negative schmegative! She leads in almost all the national polls and, more importantly, the state polls!

JoeCHI, Chicago, IL (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 10:01 PM)

Hillary can and will win. I like Obama but think he needs more experience and is a bright spot for the future. Hillary did vote for the war as all American's were mislead (nice way of saying lied to).The far right conservative wing had 8 years to try and run Bill Clinton into the ground and Hillary with him.50 million dollars and Kenneth Starr got nothing.O.K. keep bringing up the "Monica" thing. This country's been getting screwed around by this President ever since he stole the election from Gore. And "W" has the nerve to attack Kerry a war hero. Where was Bush. Hidding in Alabama! Mision not accomplished. That litttle speach cost the taxpayers over a million. Surprised he knew how to put a uniform on. Republicans you are so much in denial.

J. Berg, Chicago, Il. (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:10 AM)

Hillary will win. The nation was fooled and mislead about Iraq. Gore got robbed, Kerry should have won. Mission not accomplished. Obama is agreat man but since the Democrats have the house and senate I think he is a little too inexperienced but definetely on the rise.Let's get out of this war and take care of our own. A Republican can only win this war? Rudy with ypur nose so red!

J. Berg, Chicago, Il. (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:14 AM)

I feel Hillary is the best candidate for the democratic party. Her stupidity and having a fool for a husband will lead the republicans to hold on to the white house. I am the biggest Hillary supporter ever! Hillary as a candidate means more victories for the GOP and less of a chance that this goofy blonde will lead the country. Go Hillary!

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:15 AM)

Hillary has the experience and is my preference. Obama star is rising fast but I have to go with experience. A War Czar? I thought that the President was Commander in Chief! A woman can do this. Republicans help yourself out of denial. Mission not accomplished.

J. Berg, Chicago, Il. (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:17 AM)

J. Berg, Chicago, Il. (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:19 AM)

It is too early to measure results between ANY Dem nominee and ANY Repub nominee. Hillary has 99% recognition. Edwards and Obama do not. Once they catch up with Hillary in terms of fleshing themselves out to the voters, nationwide, then and only then will head to head matchups for the general election mean anything.

Dr. Cynthia Cole (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:47 AM)

What is amazing is that many of you who are done on Bush for the war in Iraq have absolutely forgotten all of the democrat senators who voted for the war in Iraq (including Mrs. Clinton) and were informed by the same intel that the president had received from Tennant who was Clinton's CIA director. Lets not forget, whether you want to remember it or not, Saddam positioned himself to the world that he had WMD's, I was convinced as he was very convincing. So were the rest of the middle east countries who supported war too. Do I like the war, no, but as one senator whose name escapes me said, "Senator Reid, if we lost the war in Iraq, who did we lose it too?

Mike, Livermore, California (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 9:45 AM)

"I am woman, hear me roar, in numbers to big to ignore...."--Helen Reddy

Dorothy (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 11:45 AM)

Whats sad is how our liberal media has portrayed Bush to be the worst president when he is just doing his job. It doesnt matter if you are a liberal, atheist, parapalegic, blue state democrat, Islamofacists want to kill us. Hillary would not be able to have a good foreign policy while holding ground at home. Her socialistic ideas would drop our economy and give more power to the government than needed.

Cody C Vegas Nevada (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 5:46 PM)

Why does anyone believe the polls anyway? Who really knows where they get the poll numbers from. Make your mind up by reading and gathering info about the candidates; then make a decision.

Mel, McQueeney, TX (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 7:34 PM)

Bush didn't beat Gore because more people wanted to have a beer with him. Gore received more votes, but he didn't get more electoral votes. Remember Florida? That's when we all started drinking.

Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Sunday, May 06, 2007 2:29 AM)

She's a loser. She may not even make it past the primary. Her faked accents and position changes makes one wonder if the democrats have lost their collective minds. Dogcatcher, yes. President of the United States. A joke.

Charlon Chocolomate (Sent Sunday, May 06, 2007 9:43 AM)

Again, Hilary supporters, who you want to win is not as important as who the American public wants to win. While you are a cross-section of sorts, the truth of the matter is the person who wins the one who gets the most votes. If Hillary's negatives are higher than her positives, it would seem to me this lessens the Democrats chance of winning the election. The Republicans would make her the issue, not Iraq... not health care...Hillary. This is not the kind of election we want to get into. Besides probably a good number of Southern and Midwestern voters (maybe 40-50%) not choosing Obama because of his race and other Southerners because he is from the North, Edwards to me seems to be the best logical candidate. I want the Democrats to WIN this election and not, once again, grab defeat out of the jaws of victory. Arguably, Hillary may be the most experienced and qualified of all the candidates but that won't make her a winner. In the USA, the one who wins is the one who makes people feel the best about themselves and their lives; competent or not. This is the fact of life and I don't think Hillary is capable of doing that come November 2008.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:11 AM)

I am left with few doubts that it is due to Hillarys rising negatives[not only displayed by GALLUP,but others as well including USA TODAY,RASMUSSEN,QUINNIPAC and the WSJ],and not in spite of them that she tried to move leftwards in bringing up this Iraq legislation which appears to be backfiring.A quick visit to leftwinged/liberal stalwarts FIREDOGLAKE,DAILY KOS,and HUFFINGTON POST clearly show mounting displeasure with Hillary amongst the bloggers who have been gravitating to Edwards and Kucinich[who is presenting a real danger as a Nader-like spoiler].MOVEON has just released a threat to both Hillary and Obama,saying that they will throw their weight behind Edwards if these two do not toe the party line.It has been using a unscientific poll by HOTLINE showing Edwards beating everyone including Guiliani.[www.pollster.com for more on that].I doubt it.We [and they]are just too far out on this deal.There is more than enough time for somebody to really screw things up on either side creating a definitive ratings loss or gain for themselves or other candidates.

Lee Holmes (Sent Sunday, May 06, 2007 3:58 PM)

Gore has too much global warming in his head, that is why he didn't win. Even his own state couldn't help him win and he is a fool for thinking about doing it again, specially with all the lies he tells in his movie. Bush had low ratings and still Kerry got his butt handed to him on a platter. You libs are just too much like a three year old, you lost and you throw a temper tantrum. Face it, for all your talk about Bush, no one on the liberal side could beat him. He is finishing up undefeated. Whipped a grandma, a global warming nutcase and a so-called navy hero. Were they really the best the democratic party had to offer or were they just offered up to the sacrifice because no other liberal had the brass one's to compete with W?

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:33 PM)

Robert of Salem, OR--I agree with your post. It is not about Hillary's policy positions, it is about the woman herself. No other candidate garners such vitriol from the RP, and such lukewarm support from many DP party members. She carries too much baggage. Too many "negative" aspects associated with her, rightly or wrongly. Don't expect women to vote for her as a block--too many women are fundamentalist Christians and will not support a woman running for president. Other lesser positions, yes, maybe even VP, but not CIC. Not bias, just common sense.

Frances Larsen, Newcastle, WA (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 2:31 AM)

My Honest Opinion, if we are still hung up on someone's gender, or race... if we judge female candidates or african american candidates, with a different set of standards than we do white men... we are really doomed as a nation. It's hard to comprehend, that I see many making excuses for this bigotry (nation's not ready for a female president, or a black president, they might get assassinated, etc.) and accept it, as if it's just a foregone conclusion, that we have no control over. Mark my words, if we allow non issues like this to continue to divide us, and keep us from electing the "best" people for the highest government positions.... we will all suffer dearly.

Amazed, Atlanta GA (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 8:36 AM)

Interestingly enough (and inspite of all that's been posted here), I actually like Hillary more than any of the Republican candidates. How come Gallup didn't ask me?

A Republican Who's Voting 'Dem' in '08' (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 9:05 AM)

I have studied all candidates from both parties and depth, and have determined none of them can win.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 9:11 AM)

To Paul Miller in Woodbridge Va.,.....Like I said, a lot of "pollster HOOEY!"......and to Russell in Maryland.....if polls are so accurate at this juncture of the election cycle, then WHY wasn't Howard Dean The Democratic nominee in 2004, and why didn't Wesley Clkark win the whole thing? That's what the polls showed at this point back in 2003.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 9:13 AM)

Oh, and jerry in corpus christie......Bush won re-election by just 3 percentage points. It's the lowest margin by which any incumbant was ever re-elected. (Go look it up, dippy.) That's not exactly handing anyone's head to them. It would be nice if you read once in a while, and knew what you were talking about.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 9:18 AM)

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why everyone is saying Hillary Clinton has the MOST experience?? She was firts lady, NOT vice-president. Does the white house chef have experience to be president?? No one is probalby ready to be president until they are president!!! By the way, Richardson has the most experience NOT Hillary Clinton...

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 9:20 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=182413