Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in to be re-elected as Senator from New York, but while the Empire state loves her as Senator, only about half of them would actually vote for her in a Presidential campaign. That includes 3 of every 10 Democrats.

Contrast that with Orrin Hatch, a candidate in the 2000 election, who while always a long-shot, could have reasonably expected to win Utah handily had he been nominated.

I strongly suspect that this has more to do with the difference between Republicans and Democrats than it does with Senator Clinton herself.

Republicans vote for a set of principles rather than a candidate. Democrats vote for stars.

Obviously this is a generalization, but When Bill Clinton won the White House, it was in large measure because George H.W. Bush simply wasn't Republican enough for many in his party. In Utah, were Bush 43's popularity continually defies gravity. his father's was put at serious risk by a strong move to Ross Perot (who won 27.34% of the popular vote--beating Clinton's 24.65%).

Even now, Democrat unity largely consists of opposition to Bush rather than any coherent ideology as attested to by the difficulty Congressional Democrats are having coming up with an election agenda..

Its an interesting circumstance--Hillary gets elected in New York (and will likely win reelection) because she's a star (former first lady of Bill the beloved), but she won't get the votes from New Yorkers in a presidential campaign because she isn't enough of a star.

Hillary probably understands Ted Kennedy's predicament better than anyone alive.