January 22, 2007 -- 11:44 AM EST // // Post a Comment
NOTE TO FRED HIATT: PLEASE DON'T CHERRY-PICK FROM YOUR OWN PAPER'S POLL TO PORTRAY DEMS AS UNELECTABLE.
Bizarre. Here's what today's Washington Post had to say in a partly positive editorial about Hillary Clinton's entry into the Presidential race:
A second and somewhat contradictory issue for primary voters is the matter of Ms. Clinton's "electability": Is she such a polarizing figure, with such high negatives (44 percent in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 29 percent for Mr. Obama) that she would be at a disadvantage in the fall campaign? The question about Hillary Clinton may be not so much whether a woman can win the presidency but whether this woman can.
So Clinton may not be "electable" because the Post's poll shows that her "negatives" are at 44%, the editorial says. But wait -- does Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt simply assume readers won't go and see what the poll says for themselves? Or, alternatively, does Hiatt not read them in full himself?
Let's take a look at another number in that same Post poll that also has a fair amount of relevance to the topic at hand. From the poll's full results:
23. On another subject: do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of (NAME)?Hillary Clinton: Favorable 54%, Unfavorable 44%
John McCain: Favorable 49%, Unfavorable 35%
Barack Obama: Favorable 45%, Unfavorable 29%
Yep, the poll also found that a sizeable majority -- 54% -- have a favorable view of Clinton. But the editorial didn't mention that niggling bit of information.
Now why would Hiatt's editorial page omit the fact that a majority views Clinton favorably from a discussion of her electability? Why would it go and cherry-pick the "unfavorable" number without sharing the favorable one? Why?
Anybody have any good guesses?
Update: To visit the homepage of this blog, click here.