Glaringly false. Fact check?
While Bill benefited from Perot and an ability to project himself as a moderate, nationally, Hillary! is known as a liberal (Hillary health care had as much to do with the 94" election as the "Contract with America" did-that was somewhere in Newt's book-"To Renew America")
In 2000 nationally she had 54% unfavorable ratings when she ran for the NY senate(30% neg in NY)- and that was before pardongate, furniture gate and sept 11th.)
Have you noticed that we haven't been seeing the results of those kinds of polls mentioning her name lately? On "Inside Politics" with Judy Woodruff, it was Leiberman's name that kept coming up- and Gore's name is the alternative that keeps getting proposed by the "base". If there was anything positive re: Hillary in those polls, we'd be hearing about it.
She has money (hillpac) and she is spreading it around, but the actions of Terry McAuliffe re: Sharpton and Ny Gov.s race are alienating the black base of the Democratic party, which must have huge turnout and no strays from the reservation to elect a (D) candidate.
I don't have recent poll numbers or any other "facts' regarding the future to support my statement, but I find the lack of poll numbers to be pretty telling.
Finally, my remarks regarding Dr. Rice refer to something I am working out in my own soul. I am coming to grips with the fact that if the republican party nominates a candidate who does not have moral qualms about ripping a human being fom its mothers womb, I would still crawl through broken glass on election day to vote against Hitlery.
Have you seen some recent facts that make my statements "glaringly false?"