Possibly this explains why Hillary was recently Attacking Fred Thompson

It is amazing to see that Hillary's negatives are at 48 percent. Will her campaigning cause them to rise back up above 50 percent? My guess is that this means that 2008 will be one of the all time nastiest presidential campaigns. If she can't get above a certain level, the best thing to do will be to tear down the other guy.

Front-running Democrat Hillary Clinton can do no better than tie unannounced Republican candidate Fred Thompson in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Asked whom they would vote for in a head to head match-up, 45 percent said Sen. Clinton and 45 percent chose former Sen. Thompson, with 5 percent saying they would vote for another candidate and the remainder unsure.

Clinton also outpolls Mitt Romney in a head to head race, 46 percent to 42 percent. But Clinton has lost a net five points against both Thompson and Romney since a survey conducted in early June.

In the latest Rasmussen survey, 49 percent of voters said they have a favorable opinion of Hillary, and 48 percent have an unfavorable opinion – including 30 percent who have a "very unfavorable” opinion of the former first lady.

That’s more than 10 points higher than any other current candidate.

"Because Clinton generates such strong feelings, all general election match-ups involving her are competitive,” a release from Rasmussen stated.

Curiously, that’s true even if the Republican candidate is unknown. Clinton’s support stays between 45 percent and 50 percent when matched against any of seven potential Republican candidates.

And Clinton’s GOP opponent earns between 41 percent and 46 percent of the vote regardless of who the Republican is.

Rasmussen adds: "If Clinton is the nominee, third party candidates could make the difference. It is hard to see Clinton winning a majority of the vote, but it is also hard to see her falling much below the mid-40s in terms of popular support. . . . .

UPDATE: Yet another apparent attack by Hillary on Thompson is discussed here:

The AP, taking their cue from the new because-she-said-so story offered by the L.A.Times, has run with a short clip on a story that claims Fred Thompson was working as a lobbyist for an abortion agency in 1991, giving the hearsay evidence against him but not offering the meat of his against the claim. The result is that the AP offers more "evidence" against Thompson than it does for him making it too easy to conclude he is "guilty" of the charge of lobbying for an abortion advocacy organization.

The AP did a wonderful job making this story seem more cut and dried than it really is, of course, but the fact is, this claim of Thompson's supposed lobbying for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association is nothing but an unproven (and maybe unprovable) claim against Thompson made by people who are well-known, far left activists and heavy contributors to the Hillary Clinton for President campaign. Naturally, neither the AP nor the L.A.Times wastes any time to detail the history of those making these claims against Thompson, leaving their relevant backgrounds completely out of the story. . . . .

Labels: , ,


Blogger Dad29 said...

Captain's Quarters reports that Fred absolutely, positively denies the claim--and that John Sununu, who was in charge of that area in the White House at the time, ALSO denies that Thompson lobbied the WH on the issu.

There are no billing records supporting the claim.

But the lawyers (ugh) who pushed the story are well-known Lefties in DC.

Perhaps the polling story has another angle, too: we can expect HRC to do her level (or crooked) best to kill off the Bloomberg Indy candidacy, or she's a guaranteed loser.

7/07/2007 10:48 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home