I don't think so. This is just a poll of "Americans," not "likely" or even "registered" voters. It mainly reflects name recognition.

Besides, the Slick Grope Vets, including Juanita Broaddrick, will have plenty to say if she actually runs.

I've previously speculated that Bill Clinton wouldn't have survived the blogosphere, had it existed in the early nineties. I don't think that Hillary will either.

[Update at 11:15 AM EDT]

In response to some snark in the comments section, I decided to pull this up into the main post:

I'd just like to point out, for the benefit of the visitors here who didn't buy the Clinton Chronicles Criterion Edition DVD, that the 3rd of your links itself includes links that suggest the Clintons murdered both Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and at least 34 other innocent people.

Ahhh, six degrees of separation of links. Pardon me while my eyes roll.

Rand, would you care to state, for the record, whether you believe either of those scenarios are true?

With regard to Vince Foster, I have no idea who killed him, but I think that, based on the publicly available evidence, it is extremely unlikely that he died in Fort Marcy Park, and there is little evidence to prove that he died by his own hand, and quite a bit the other way. The case was so badly botched that we'll probably never know what happened, absent a confession on someone's part. I do think it likely that the Clintons know who is responsible, but certainly can't prove that. I also find it amusing that those who would otherwise demonize Ken Starr accept his word unquestioningly when it comes to the Foster report.

The Ron Brown death was extremely suspicious, and convenient to the Clintons in its timing, but again, I'm not going make any direct accusations. As in the Foster case, I lack sufficient data.

Anyways, for all the whining about how Democrats have no ideas, I'm thrilled to hear the GOP plans on leading with Bill's character issues in their effort to tear Hillary down.

I said nothing about GOP plans. Not being a member of the GOP, I've no idea what their plans are (hint: not everyone who thinks that Bill Clinton was corrupt is a "right winger" or a Republican). I was describing the potential response of the blogosphere and the women he (and his wife) molested, slandered and libeled. Thanks for playing, though.

And if you think none of the potential GOP nominees have exploitable character issues, well, whatever. IOKIYAR and all.

Those are theoretical. Hillary's are real.

[One more update at 2 PM]

Many of the objections in comments are beside the point, because this isn't about Bill Clinton's sexual behavior--it's about his and Hillary's (often successful) attempts at character assassination of his accusers.

Like Hillary, John McCain has reached his high point in the polls.

I think she got a bump from millions of conservatives who find the prospect of a Hillary presidency much less vomitile than the thought of a McCain presidency.

I predict a "Hillary lied about sex!" campaign will be exactly as effective as the "Bush lied about war!" campaign. IE - if conservatives spend the election bleating about old sex scandals instead of saying what they'd do with a third GOP term in the White House, the swing voters will run away from them at full speed.

At the same time I'm not convinced Hillary is the best Democratic candidate. Evan Bayh or John Edwards or Bill Richardson would go into the election with less vulnerabilities and more room for growth. So, do your worst.

It wouldn't be a "Hillary Lied About Sex" campaign (though that's no doubt how the media would attempt to spin it). It would be a "Hillary Abused Inconvenient Women" campaign.

Shorter Rand Simberg: What Scaife had to pay for in the 90s, bloggers will do for free! What a deal!

I'd just like to point out, for the benefit of the visitors here who didn't buy the Clinton Chronicles Criterion Edition DVD, that the 3rd of your links itself includes links that suggest the Clintons murdered both Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and at least 34 other innocent people. Rand, would you care to state, for the record, whether you believe either of those scenarios are true?

Anyways, for all the whining about how Democrats have no ideas, I'm thrilled to hear the GOP plans on leading with Bill's character issues in their effort to tear Hillary down. Actually, I don't think we'll be that lucky. But as 2004 showed, the side motivated more by dislike of the other candidate tends to be more than off-putting to the millions of Americans who aren't allied with either party, especially in a time of war and economic uncertainty.

But this strategy is coming from someone who thinks the blogs could have gotten Bush 41 re-elected (or maybe Bob Dole). The issues facing Americans are water under the bridge, nothing but a symptom of the MSM to be cured by the blogosphere. I'm all for that opinion, seeing how Bush's numbers on every single issue are tanking (but they're still better than the GOP congress's).

And if you think none of the potential GOP nominees have exploitable character issues, well, whatever. IOKIYAR and all.

Rand - In all seriousness, the difference between these scandals and the Swift Boat stuff (referenced in the stuff you link to) is that the Swift Boat stuff took Kerry by surprise and concerned fundamental issues of patriotism, treason, and what was then the key plank of Kerry's campaign - "I served in Vietnam." The surprise factor was the big one - Kerry had fought a few Senate campaigns in Mass. where this stuff never came up, and when it sprung he handled it poorly.

The crucial factor here is that the Clintons have thwarted the Broaddick, Willey, etc etc accusations in two presidential elections and a Senate campaign. "But blogs weren't around yet!" So? Talk radio and the MSM covered them. The GOP candidates rode that to 38%, 40% and 43% of the vote. But the non-central nature of the allegations, compared to the Kerry/Vietnam stuff, is important too. Clinton's not going to be running talking about her record of ethics. Republicans who bring it up will look angry and conspiratorial.

The same thing being said about Bill Frist can be said about Hillary. Frist can't manage his party in the Senate, so how is he going to deal with foreign powers with different agendas? Hillary couldn't even manage her relationship with her serial philandering husband, so how's she going to deal with corrupt 'Oil for Food' states such as France and Russia?
Furthermore, every time Hillary takes a 'conservative' position, she should be asked if she then repudiates the previous position her new statement contradicts. As in, "So, you were wrong when you said (the opposite) back then?"
As the great philosopher Mr. Natural once opined, "He who shits on the road meets flies on his return"

Gary:

Hmmm, by those numbers, one might almost conclude that Bill Clinton lacked a mandate, since over 50% of the people never voted for him.

Wherein lies the problem: If there is no third-party candidate, can Hillary score more points than Bill? She's a woman, so it's possible that there'll be women crossing over to vote for her. OTOH, she's more of a known quantity, which isn't always a good thing.

Now, trying to tie the Brodderick and other stories to her has a fundamental problem: those were the sins of Bill, not of Hillary. (Of course, the whole kit & kaboodle were denied at the time, on evidence far stronger than flushed Koreans.) But arguing that she is somehow to blame for Bill allegedly raping a woman or trying to get sex from subordinates is going to be very difficult.

And she has been very, very savvy in her handling of various bills.

Let's see how she does in '06....

You have to remember that in both Clinton campaigns, Hillary had to be locked away in order for Bill to be elected. She alienated more women than Bill did with his groping with her remarks.

I don't see any reason why she will be less irritating to the country than she was when she was just running for first Lady.

That poll says 33% of all Conservatives would vote for her.

That is about as believable as a poll saying 33% of all Jews would vote for Hitler or %33 of all Gulag survivors would vote for Stalin.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010574.php

Please read this link. Apparently, the sample was heavily skewed toward democarts. It might be bad news for the Hildabeast instead.

A poll in which 33% of conservatives say they would vote for Hillary is an asshat poll. I don't care if Jesus Christ the Righteous was conducting the sampling.

You put Hillary up against Condi Rice and Hillary loses over 20% of the black vote to Condi. Which means Hillary loses. Period.

Section9 - I agree. Condi Rice would win the presidency of Fantasyland in a walk.

I don't see how Hillary could possibly beat Condi. Condi would undercut her support amongst blacks and minorities as well as women. She would beat Hillary in a rout.

I think Gary meant "Condi would win the presidency in the Fantasyland where she is actually running." So far Condi denies any presidential aspirations. Very unfortunate, IMO.

I wonder if candidate Condi would wear that black leather outfit to the debates...

Maybe if the Republican candidate is strong enough and Wise enough he will offer Condi the VP position.