• 
• 
• 
• 
by David Lightman
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the Northeast's favorite daughter, a status that's likely to give her important early strength in this winter's Democratic primaries and caucuses.
"Clinton has a tremendous advantage in the Northeast," said Darrell M. West, director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown University in Providence, an advantage unusual in the past 30 years or so, when candidates haven't been able to assume that their home base would support them.
Her edge could be a huge help, first because of New Hampshire, where the latest Granite State Poll, taken Sept. 17-24, put her ahead of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, her closest rival, by 23 points.
She is also far ahead in other key early states in the region: A Quinnipiac Polling Institute New Jersey poll in September put Clinton ahead of Obama, 46 percent to 15 percent, as I write in today's Hartford Courant.
by David Lightman
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the Northeast's favorite daughter, a status that's likely to give her important early strength in this winter's Democratic primaries and caucuses.
"Clinton has a tremendous advantage in the Northeast," said Darrell M. West, director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown University in Providence, an advantage unusual in the past 30 years or so, when candidates haven't been able to assume that their home base would support them.
Her edge could be a huge help, first because of New Hampshire, where the latest Granite State Poll, taken Sept. 17-24, put her ahead of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, her closest rival, by 23 points.
She is also far ahead in other key early states in the region: A Quinnipiac Polling Institute New Jersey poll in September put Clinton ahead of Obama, 46 percent to 15 percent.
In Pennsylvania, she topped him 42 percent to 24 percent in a Strategic Vision poll Sept. 28-30.
And in New York, where she was re-elected to the Senate in a landslide last year, the latest Siena College poll shows that the state is comfortably hers.
Those bulges help cement her status as the national front-runner, although no one is saying this early in the presidential game that Clinton is unbeatable among Democrats in the region, where long-shot Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, another favorite son, continues to stump hard in New Hampshire and often stresses his New England roots.
And experts still don't regard geography as the built-in advantage it once was, when a favorite son was assured of strong support from his home and neighboring states and other candidates stayed out of his way.
Today, though, "it takes more than [local roots] to be seen as a viable presidential candidate," said Merle Black, professor of politics and government at Emory University in Atlanta.
Black and others trace the beginning of the end of the days of favorite sons to 1980, when Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy lost decisively in New Hampshire and Vermont, two critical early primaries, to Jimmy Carter, the former Georgia governor with the distinctive drawl.
The trend continued in the general election, when Carter lost every Deep South state but his own to Californian Ronald Reagan. And, Black said, Carter drew only about 35 percent of the southern white vote that year, down from 47 percent in 1976.
In the years that followed, there were other examples. Vice President Al Gore couldn't carry Tennessee when he ran for president in 2000. Four years later, John Edwards, then a North Carolina senator, failed to swing his own state into the Democratic column when he ran for vice president.
Clinton, though, seems to have a near-lock on the nine states that define the Northeast - the New England and Middle Atlantic states - a potentially formidable advantage, since five of those states, including Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, hold primaries or caucuses within the first few weeks of next year's nominating season.
What propels Clinton to the top, analysts said, is that her New York ties help in both obvious and subtle ways. Obvious because as a senator representing the state for the past six and a half years, "people see her here, and they think she wears well. They also know what she's done for New York," said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist [N.Y.] Institute for Public Opinion.
They see her on local television constantly, not only in New York, but in much of Connecticut, New Jersey and Rhode Island. They see her talking about helping victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks or seeking more money to untangle the traffic in and out of New York City.
More subtly, residents of the region see her talking about terrorism in nuanced ways, said Julian E. Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.
"You have a lot of liberal voters in the region," he said, and they like her record. But they also like that "she understands the complexity behind the war on terrorism." Instead of simply endorsing firm timelines or making promises about troop strength in her first term, Clinton's ability to talk about issues with some depth is appealing, Zelizer said.
But there is a darker side to Clinton's regional appeal - notably the idea that she's really not from New York. The potential problem crops up in ways big and seemingly small.
When she was asked at the Sept. 26 New Hampshire candidates' debate who she would root for in a New York-Chicago World Series, Clinton, who grew up in a Chicago suburb, hesitated and finally said, "I would probably have to alternate sides."
She also could suffer an anti-Northeast backlash elsewhere in the nation. The Clinton magic has not swept Iowa, for instance, where she is in a close three-way race with Obama and Edwards.
So far, though, Clinton's campaign has the look and feel of an old-fashioned favorite daughter juggernaut. And analysts think she has a unique ability to have both the regional advantage but also not get hurt by it - after all, to people outside the Northeast, she's a national figure, someone they've known since 1992.
In a nation where people routinely uproot themselves, and where many cities and towns have the same chain stores and fast-food joints and where people watch the same TV shows as everyone else, geography plays less of a role.
In addition, experts agree, in a time of war, when a national issue dominates the political conversation, voters tend to worry less about someone's hometown than where they stand.
"She's in a very strong position," said Granite State Poll director Andrew E. Smith.
Contact David Lightman at dlightman@courant.com.
Comments
Hillary is nothing more than a opportunist and whats worse than that is she is a "Carbetbagger".
Is it any wonder that the eastcoast "Elitists" love her, she fits right in. I'm still amazed that the New York population swallowed her drivel hook line and sinker.
Posted by: Paul Jaeger | October 9, 2007 9:23 AM
The Democrats answer to Mr. 911 (Rodolfo Giuliano) is going to be Mrs. 911 (Hillary/Bill Clinton). Make no doubt about it. The battle of New York is looming before us. Yeah, right as if only the Northeast can produce the leaders of this country. They actually believe that. Give the edge to Hillary/Bill though, cause Bill Clinton brings all those Southern votes in. The Democrat establishment actually believes that. They actually believe that Middle America and the West are so laid back that they can't even produce a candidate who can walk and chew gum at the same time. I actually believe that the Democrats are going to blow it again with Hillary/Bill (no pun intended).
Posted by: GW | October 9, 2007 10:01 AM
If Hillary's the northeast's favorite daughter (adopted, of course, since she's from Illinois and Arkansas), then the northeast's favorite adopted CONVICTED FELON must be Sandy Burglar, Hillary's adviser on "national security and how to steal documents from the National Archives." And when is the Tribune's Wash bureau going to do an in-depth article about Mr. Berger and what advice he is giving, what role in a supposed Clinton administration will be when he gets back his national security clearance, and, most important, why he's walking around free and not in jail. Don't anyone hold your breath.
Posted by: Hank | October 9, 2007 10:44 AM
Hank, I'm wondering the same thing. Actually, not. But, Mark and Frank, why has there been nothing about convicted Sandy Burglar being an active participant, an "unofficial" advisor to the Clinton campaign?
Come on, you guys, you do throw the occasional bone to make the rarely occasional effort at showing some objectivity and fairness. Heck, if Scooter Libby was an "unofficial" advisor to a Republican candidate, we know you two would be having oodles upon oodles of Swamp stories about it.
Posted by: John D | October 9, 2007 11:17 AM
Hillary is nothing more than a opportunist and whats worse than that is she is a "Carbetbagger".
Posted by: Paul Jaeger | October 9, 2007 9:23 AM
Would that be like an opportuist that took advantage of a terrible attack on US soil to promote a war against a country that had nothing to do with the attack? One who played on the emotions of this and boosted that with questionable intel.
Posted by: bill r. | October 9, 2007 11:25 AM
If the basis for having campaign advisors is being politically "clean", who would be left for the Republicans??
Posted by: BobinATL | October 9, 2007 11:32 AM
Maybe John D or Hank should write letters the the REPUBLICAN Department of Justice and ask them why Sandy "Burglar" is not in jail. I'm pretty sure they would know more than the Chicago Tribune Swamp. Republics will do anything to avoid talking about the disaster in Iraq. How's the political reconciliation coming along Johnny D. or Hank, er I mean Bruce.
Posted by: jethro | October 9, 2007 12:11 PM
Jethro, deaths sharply down in Iraq in September. Various Iraqi factions are helping the U.S. military and Iraqi police weed out Al Qaeda terrorists and those killing people. That's how things are going in Iraq.
Why don't you know that?
Posted by: John D | October 9, 2007 12:41 PM
"Posted by: John D | October 9, 2007 12:41 PM"
[quote]
Petraeus came up with his "over 45 percent" decline by comparing December 2006 and this past August. The December number, in particular, stands out as questionable. For almost all of 2006, the U.S. military count of civilian deaths ran lower than Iraq Body Count's numbers. But the Petraeus number for December, the starting point for measuring the impact of the surge, suddenly leaped 12 percent above the group's, before plunging back well below it.
Col. Steven Boylan, Petraeus's spokesman, said of December's number: "Do we have 100 percent confidence in it? No. But it is the best data we have available." The number may have included some double counting by the Iraqi government, which has since improved its methods, he said. The military uses data from Iraqi sources, he said, because "we are not physically in every location in Iraq."
Stephen Biddle, a scholar at the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations, said Petraeus's December number was "very high" but was likely the result of "statistical noise" — the tendency of Iraq numbers to jump all over the place. Biddle was an adviser to Petraeus last spring but believes the general's testimony was "potentially misleading" because it didn't discuss all the reasons why the numbers might have improved.
[/quote]
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07pubed.html?pagewanted=2&n=Top/Opinion/The%20Public%20Editor
Posted by: BC | October 9, 2007 3:28 PM
The Swamp reported that Hillary Clinton states she is running on a "legacy" of economic prosperity. Yes, Bill Clinton did leave a wonderful surplus that GWB squandered. I guess HRC and Bill really were co-presidents for eight years. Since Hillary is conclusively tied to Bill's legacy, she is also running on the legacy of NAFTA.
In its discussion phase, we were told that NAFTA would be good for America, and, it would allow more Mexicans to support themselves in Mexico. NAFTA was suppose to help limit illegal immigration. NAFTA took effect in 1994. Bill Clinton pushed for it (and the WTO.) Since that time, NAFTA has been good mainly for businesses and corporations and bad for America and Americans. It makes workers powerless. The bill might as well have been signed by George W. Bush. American business does not want to be loyal to America anymore. Clinton gave American business incentive to be loyal only to itself. As NAFTA expands- America depletes- with companies finding greener pastures off-shore, and outsourcing to new, non-American workers. NAFTA is not helpful to labor. And, it is bad for the environment. Business goes where there is less EPA. Less EPA (among other things)- in lesser developed countries. As NAFTA grew, the pendulum leaned more toward business and MNCs - at the peril of our own determination and self control. NAFTA plays havoc with democracy- power vested to the people- now, more power to the corporations. Who does NAFTA care for? Who does NAFTA represent? Who is it loyal to? Where do they do their community outreach? What is the country of NAFTA? Who lives there? Who wants to say "I pledge allegiance to NAFTA"? I'm guessing the Clintons want to.
Hillary Clinton's legacy is NAFTA. NAFTA is bad for America. I'm wondering why some unions have signed on with her? I find no logic in those unions' choice.
I would like a president who is a free agent- not one who is chained to family legacies and, or, pigeonholed into forced choices. We have already had enough of that. John Edwards, and possibly Dodd or Biden look better.
Posted by: Vivian | October 9, 2007 3:40 PM
Johnny:
Come talk to us when US deaths in Iraq are down to ZERO per month - you know, like in Bosnia.
And how is that political solution coming along - you know, the one that will let us leave there?
Posted by: BobinATL | October 9, 2007 3:57 PM
Sandy Berger belongs behind bars, If any other
American got caught stuffing his or her pants with classified documents they would not see the light of day. It makes no difference whether Democrat or Republican. Which leads me to question Hillary's fittness to serve.
Posted by: Paul Jaeger | October 9, 2007 7:02 PM
Bobin, tell us how the political situation is doing in Bosnia?
BC, here are some accurate stats, and Petreaus has not provided "questionable" information:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-30-deaths_N.htm?csp=34
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071001/ts_nm/iraq_dc_5
Posted by: John D | October 9, 2007 8:33 PM