Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Call Her the Frontrunner

Sure, we signed off from The Fix for the week yesterday, but no political junkie worth his stripes (and that's me for sure) could pass up the opportunity to write about a new CNN survey testing support for a list of possible Democratic presidential candidates.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
A CNN survey of registered Democrats shows that Sen. Clinton is clearly the early frontrunner for the 2008 nomination. Above, Clinton prepares to address the Association for a Better New York breakfast on Nov. 13. (AP)

No surprise here: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) led the pack with 33 percent support in the hypothetical match-up. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) was second with 15 percent in the survey.

One point down the pack were former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and former Vice President Al Gore, who each garnered 14 percent support in the survey. Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the party's 2004 presidential nominee, took just 7 percent. No other potential candidate took more than 4 percent. The survey was conducted by Opinion Research for CNN from Nov. 17-19. It tested 530 registered Democrats. (See the full poll results here.)

Even more telling were the results when Democrats were asked if they would consider supporting other potential candidates beyond their first choice.

Among registered Democrats, 44 percent of those currently backing another candidate said would consider supporting Edwards -- the highest "second choice" rating in the poll. Edwards's strong showing among second-choicers is not terribly surprising as he carries very high favorable ratings as a result of his 2004 run for president and subsequent presence on the Democratic presidential ticket. This poll is sure to bolster the argument made quietly by Edwards allies for months that he is the candidate best positioned to be the anti-Clinton candidate.

Forty-two percent of respondents said they would consider backing Gore as a second choice, while 39 percent and 38 percent, respectively, said they might support Clinton or Kerry. Surprisingly, Obama scored the lowest of the second-choice candidate, with just 35 percent saying they would consider supporting him if their chosen candidate was not in the race.

Respondents were also asked if they "did not want to see" any of the second-choice candidate names as the 2008 nominee. The results here are particularly bad for Kerry: Fully 51 percent of the Democratic sample who are not supporting Kerry currently said they did not want to see him as the nominee in 2008 -- empirical evidence that Democrats are simply unwilling to nominate a past loser. (The last time that happened was in 1952 and 1956 when Adlai Stevenson was chosen as the nominee in back-to-back elections.)

More than four-in-ten Democrats (43 percent) said they did not want Gore as their 2008 nominee, while 38 percent said they would not like to see Obama as their party's nominee and 36 percent said they opposed Edwards as their standard-bearer.

Interestingly, only 27 percent of the sample not already backing Clinton currently said they were opposed to her being their party's nominee in 2008. This would seem to put to lie -- at least momentarily -- the idea that anyone not with Clinton (even Democrats) is against her.

Remember that this is a single poll, and as with any lone survey too much should not be read into it. But it suggests that Clinton and Edwards are in a strong position heading into 2008, while Obama may not be as strong as he currently appears (if he decides to run, of course).

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 21, 2006; 1:45 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Thanksgiving: Resting Up for '08
Next: The Vilsack-Obama Talent Primary

Comments

Why isn't the media covering Wesley Clark more often? He is the True Dark Horse in the Running. I am so tired of hearing about inexperienced Obama and Hillary who I've tried to like by the way.

Posted by: Truth789 | December 4, 2006 4:11 PM | Report abuse

AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE

The man who won in 2000 with 500,000 more votes than Bush and the most hostile press in the history of Presidential Elections has positioned himself perfectly
HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ

IRAQ will be the issue in 08
A Gore/O'bama ticket will kill any Republican offering.

Posted by: B Bozeman | December 2, 2006 7:18 AM | Report abuse

I'm afraid that most people that say they are for Hillary envision the second coming of Bill. Unfortunately that will not be the case. You can bet that she will be the president and that is as it should be. I liked and still like Bill Clinton. I don't care for Hillary and, after 20 years of Bush-Clinton, let's try somebody else. In addition, the last thing this Country needs right now is another outbreak of venomous Clinton hating. You just know that all those crazies would come out of the manure pile they have been living in since 2000 to "Go after those Clinton's"

Posted by: RalphH | December 2, 2006 1:22 AM | Report abuse

I'm afraid that most people that say they are for Hillary envision the second coming of Bill. Unfortunately that will not be the case. You can bet that she will be the president and that is as it should be. I liked and still like Bill Clinton. I don't care for Hillary and, after 20 years of Bush-Clinton, let's try somebody else. In addition, the last thing this Country needs right now is another outbreak of venomous Clinton hating. You just know that all those crazies would come out of the manure pile they have been living in since 2000 to "Go after those Clinton's"

Posted by: RalphH | December 2, 2006 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Steve: No I am not on the Hillary payroll, and folks like me, disabled and almost but not quite homebound, find her to have the best knowledge of the problems of this country as well as the rest of the world, and will be the best person for the job of POTUS. The best thing that Hillary has is Bubba and I doubt there are very few that would disagree that Bubba has the best political knowledge of anyone that is a student of politics. The thing that will put Clinton/Warner in the White House has been mentioned ,in my opinion, several times as well as many reasons why and how she is a winner. Now if, a big IF, she makes a run for the top job she will have it.

Posted by: lylepink | December 1, 2006 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I would wonder if lyle is on the HRC payroll as much as he's defending her. Either that or is divorced from the reality of the general public perception of her.

She is clearly the favorite Democratic choice of Republicans, because she is probably the easiest prominent Dem to beat.

Clearly lots of Repubs are rooting for Obama too because he's untested. Its easy to be the hero when all the attention is fawning, look at John Edwards press in late 02 and early 03 for a preview. Such early popularity did not translate into a victory for him in 04.

I hope Obama stays out in 08, because he would be a much stronger candidate in 12 or 16, AND his being in would suck all the oxygen out of coverage of anyone but him and HRC, and the primaries would play out like so... HRC makes the case that she would be more electable than Obama because of his lack of experience and there would be sub rosa suggestions due to his race, would receive the nomination and fail to convince the 2/3 of independent voters that she would need to win the election.

Posted by: Steve | November 30, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse

is Mrs. Clinton ready? America is ready for a woman Pres. why not? There has never been a female president. it's time. Prove to us you are the right female for the job and you will have my vote. If you make it to the white house, please listen to your husband,,

Posted by: sardony | November 30, 2006 12:06 AM | Report abuse

What about the 1% who did not know who Bill Clinton is?

Posted by: CD in LA | November 29, 2006 11:37 PM | Report abuse

http://usprez2008.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html

Saturday, September 03, 2005

NOMINEE PREDICTIONS - 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

My nominee predictions are:

Democratic Party:
President: Hillary Clinton
Vice President: Bill Richardson

Republican Party:
President: John McCain
Vice President: Rudolph Giuliani

V-R
3 SEPTEMBER 2005


Posted by: R. Ventura-Rosa | November 29, 2006 1:35 PM | Report abuse

"The world is only just waiting for her decision"

We may be waiting; but, we ain't exactly holdin' our breath while we wait.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 29, 2006 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Knunle: Where were you when I needed you the past day or so? Kidding a little there. I was just checking this out before going to the others. Glad to see you also agree that Hillary is the winner in 08 if she chooses to run.

Posted by: lylepink | November 29, 2006 10:46 AM | Report abuse

The Republican party wants a Democratic Presidential candidate they can beat hands down but are very afraid of Hillary Clinton emerging as a Top notcher for the Dem.

Hillary will be president as soon as she makes up her mind. The world is only just waiting for her decision

Posted by: Kunle Sowunmi | November 29, 2006 9:27 AM | Report abuse

JimD: Don't forget Frank Luntz. He is the Newt you see in public. Not so Hillary, what you see is what you get and the dems need someone for all the people, not only in the immediate time period but for years to come and that fits Hillary to a "T".

Posted by: lylepink | November 28, 2006 6:46 PM | Report abuse

lylepink

This is a quote from Charlie Cook discussing Newt Gingrich's candidacy. It pretty much sums up what I feel about Hillary:

"In many ways, it's the same problem that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) has among independents, Republicans and even some Democrats. While Gingrich will certainly never be popular among Democrats and Clinton certainly won't be loved or even liked by most Republicans, each must reduce their radioactivity if they are to be truly viable general election candidates, or for that matter, convince their own parties that they are electable in November 2008. To watch or talk with either in recent years is to see two politicians who have grown, matured and improved enormously over the last dozen years, but the question is whether it will take."

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 28, 2006 5:46 PM | Report abuse

That may explain why you get a different feedback than I do JimD. I talk with folks from all walks of life and when political matters come up I find that Bubba is by far the most popular of them all. When Hillary is mentioned there are those among them that will admit they support her but will not do so with some of their so called friends. This may explain how I think the polls i.e. McCain or Rudy could be as much as 10% off in their matchups. I am firmly convinced if she runs she will be the next POTUS.

Posted by: lylepink | November 28, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Hillary will not have a problem raising money. She has a huge warchest already. However, it is decidedly difficult to reverse 15 years of image making. Secondly, I agree with the IrishCurse - there are a lot of people I know with a deep, visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton. I know of no one around here who supports her. (although as a retired military officer and small businessman I do not exactly move in Democratic circles).

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 28, 2006 1:30 PM | Report abuse

JimD and Truth Hunter: The thing I believe both of you are missing is the lower and just below the median income level of folks that usually do not vote. This is where I find the support for Hillary the greatest followed by the very well educated. A good and varied mix, but one would not think that by listenibg to the pundits. I jokingly said I would get my "Crystal Ball" out a couple of times and I have been pretty well on target for my predictions going back to 1948, which was my first one, and have not missed a POTUS prediction once the party has made their choices. The polls you refer to is just what the opposition wants you to think early in the game and have spent so much time and effort, not to mention "MONEY". MONEY, as well as we all know buys infulence and to change that you have to spend more. Hillary will have no problem in that area. The polls do not reflect the wishes of many women that wants a woman as POTUS and that is another hidden factor in her favor.

Posted by: lylepink | November 28, 2006 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see Brownback and Frist throw there hats in the ring..Let the repugs start an inner party battle royale..Let them fracture themselves between the moderates/conservatives/theonazis..Can only help the dems...My throw in on Hillary is i married into a family of hard, hard right Christian/Evangelical/Fundamentalists, and if Hillary is the dem nominee in '08 then the Boy Genius can put his micro targeting GOTV cell phone away cause he won't need it...trust me on that...

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | November 28, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"Ethics reform, a higher minimum wage and more money for stem cell research are the top items on the Senate agenda next year, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday."

Ha ha ha. Having dirty Harry clean up ethics is like Bill clinton guarding the interns dormitory. and in case you checked, Wal-Mart already pays $7.50 to start. that sure will effect all those teens saving up for beer. and research that has offered no progress while other types of this science is advancing rapidly. that sure sounds like something I want the Fed Government to meddle in, obsolete wage and price fixing, funding failing science and pretending to change things so the Leader doesn't smell so bad of corruption. dirty Harry is going to get a taste of obstructionism. he can dish it out but can he take it. Remember when clinton promised the most ethical admin in history. Ha ha ha. sounds like nancy right beofre she tried to foist Abscam Murtha and Secrets for sale Hastings on us.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 28, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is used as the "Wicked Witch of the East" in Republican fund raising. Attack ads used in Florida against the Democratic Congressman running for governor featured lines like "endorsed by Hillary Clinton" and "attended fundraisers with Hillary Clinton".

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 28, 2006 12:18 PM | Report abuse

One further thing... the race will be won by the candidate who gets the swing/undecided/unaligned votes. I don't see Hillary getting the majority of those, especially if a "personality" heads the GOP ticket.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | November 28, 2006 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink, I certainly don't "resent" Hillary for anything and making that argument is insulting to those of us who seriously care about who is running things.

Don't think you can count on any "sector" vote not knowing the competition, and for some Bubba is a negative especially since he started the ball rolling on NAFTA. As for the women's vote, the majority of women will vote the issues just like men.

Jim D's point about Hillary spurring a massive get-out-the-vote push from the Repubs rings true. Like I said, the Dems can do better.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | November 28, 2006 12:09 PM | Report abuse

lylepink

I do not resent Hillary Clinton nor do I resent your support of her. I believe that one of the reasons for her very high unfavorable numbers in the polls is that many people do resent her for not fitting certain notions of "lady like" behavior. That is unfortunate but it is what it is. She is deeply detested by a lot of people.
No one could inspire a more massive get out the vote effort for the Republicans than Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 28, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Mike Jamison: I have already asked about 50 or so folks I know and about 5 or 6 support Gore, the rest are fully in support of Hillary and there are a few repubs in this bunch. Clinton/Warner in 08 is a winner. To get this ticket is the hard thing now but i will keep trying and hoping Hillary will make the choice to make a run.

Posted by: lylepink | November 28, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

The reason for my support for Hillary has been laid out pretty well, at least I think so, and I am beginning to see what I have stated on many times. One of the things many people do not understand is Resentment. Most of you have seen this happen in that folks you have helped do come to resent you for doing so. I cannot explain this but have seen it happen many times, and just maybe this is what is going on now for a whole bunch of folks that resented her success in the first place.

Posted by: lylepink | November 28, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse


Does anyone know Donna Brazile's leanings?
She was on CNN the other day (sitting with
Michael Steele and Wolf Blitzer) and when
the discussion turned to handicapping the 08 Dem race, she pretty quicly redirected the discussion of the front runners to.....
Evan Bayh. She basicly predicted there
would be interest in him, seeing how he
was a former Governor.

Let me suggest an exercise among your
immediate circle of friends (who are
registered Democrats): see if you can
actually find someone supporting Hillary.
I'm scratching my head (here in strong
Dem activist country, Reno Nv) and I think
I may have run into ONE Hillary supporter.
Would this exercise reveal, in fact, that
one out of three of your friends support
her for the nomination?

Posted by: Mike Jamieson | November 28, 2006 11:25 AM | Report abuse


I think Hillary Clinton's main problem will
be manifesting when the 75% of the Democrats who don't know much, if anything.
about Evan Bayh begin to learn about him.
In the national surveys (of registered Dems), Senator Clinton gets 29-33%. Bayh
gets 2-3%. It isn't going to be like that
in a few short months.

Posted by: Mike Jamieson | November 28, 2006 11:14 AM | Report abuse

JimD and Truth Hunter: You have other favorites which may tend to skew you away fom Hillary so let us look at a couple of things that we may possibly agree on. The vote of the Asian, Hispanic,and Black folk would be in the high 70's at least. Bubba is considered the best political mind in the country. Couple these two together with the failed war in Iraq and the folks will support her in numbers that no one can even think of at this time, myself included. The get out the vote effort will also help in that She will have the support of many women that otherwise would not be involved. She has the POTUS well within reach. The only thing she must do is decide to get in the 08 race with Warner as her VP.

Posted by: lylepink | November 28, 2006 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink, you're not getting it. It doesn't matter whether you have something simple to say which makes HRC look good (and what you suggest in fact takes sustained dialogue to make the point). Once you start talking about her the ears go shut. It doesn't matter how simple what you have to say if a majority of the people aren't going to listen to the first word you say. Again, it may not be fair, but that's politics.

Posted by: Zathras | November 28, 2006 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"It's unfortunate that we Dems allow republicans to define our candidates for us, instead of making up our minds based on what we ourselves think about them"

The problem is not what the Democrats think about their candidates - it is what the unaffiliated swing voters think. The main problem Democratic presidential candidates have had over the last 30 years is appealing to middle of the road independent voters. Bill Clinton was the only one since Carter in the post-Watergate election who was able to do this and he was greatly assisted by a third party candidate who drew more from the Republicans than the Democrats in 1992.

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 28, 2006 10:43 AM | Report abuse

lylepink, I feverently hope that Hillary isn't the best and last hope for the Democratic party..... they can, and should, do much better.

Naked ambition (perception) and a politically astute husband aren't enough, she doesn't "communicate." Like it or not, she just can't make the connection... McCain can (or did), Obama can and there are others. Kerry couldn't and didn't....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | November 28, 2006 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Brownback has stated that the Republicans lost the mid-terms because they strayed from the hard right. Now, exit polls showed that moderate independent voters swung heavily for the Democrats so the facts do not seem to support his hypothesis.

I think Brownback will attract significant support from the ayatollah wing of the Republican party and his candidacy could seriously undermine Mitt Romney's attempts to attract social conservatives. Romney is suspect in the eyes of many on the religious right since he is a Mormon and was Governor of Sodom and Gomorrah (I mean Massachussets). Many evangelicals regard Mormonism as a cult.

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 28, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Zathras: As I have stated many times the object of those opposed to you will and do their best to paint a picture that they would like you to be. One of the first things I learned was "Listen for what they don't say." Another is "Accuse your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing and in that way you will know what you are doing." These are really simple things that work for the reason they are so simple to understand. Hillary is, IMO, the very best the dems have to offer and the opposition will do whatever they can to bring her down. Simple is the key thing here to remember and do try and remember the simplest solution is usually the best solution. See how easy it is to explain. Simple.

Posted by: lylepink | November 28, 2006 10:33 AM | Report abuse

It's unfortunate that we Dems allow republicans to define our candidates for us, instead of making up our minds based on what we ourselves think about them.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 28, 2006 10:26 AM | Report abuse

lylepink,

I totally agree with Zathras.

Senator Clinton's success in upstate New York had as much to do with her feeble opposition as it did with her appeal. The motives of the Hillary haters might be venal but there are a lot of them. Her negative public image has been about 15 years in the making and she will not be able to overcome it.

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 28, 2006 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Zathras, I totally agree, as they say, in politics perception is everything. That's why Obama is currently so popular, the way he's perceived.

Same holds true for Bush.... no matter how many trips he makes trying to run away from, and improve, his image, there it is, shadowing him like his evil twin. He is perceived as fatally flawed (a perception he worked hard to earn). Even his proposed half billion dollar presidential library can't whitewash his Iraq albatross.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | November 28, 2006 10:16 AM | Report abuse

In May, 2005, at the height of the nomination battle over President George W. Bush's far-right judicial picks, Sen. Sam Brownback took his stand against the Democrats' dreaded filibuster. "All of the President's nominees--both now and in the future--deserve a fair up or down vote," Brownback declared.

As 2008 draws nearer, Brownback's ambition is exposed.


The junior senator from the once-moderate Jayhawk state yearns for a chance to direct the right's never-ending kulturkampf from the Oval Office. He is thus bending over backwards to secure the endorsement of the Christian right, the dominant faction of an attenuated conservative coalition. To earn the support of the GOP's man-on-dog wing, Brownback is even willing to contradict his imporation for the "fair" treatment of Bush's nominees. As the Republican battle-cry goes, whatever it takes!

In October, Brownback used a parliamentary maneuver to stall Bush's nomination of Judge Janet Neff to Federal District Court. Neff's sin? In 2002, she attended a longtime neighbor's lesbian "commitment ceremony." "It seems to speak about her view of judicial activism," Brownback said at the time. "That's something I want to inquire of her further."
Now, with Neff's nomination pending, Brownback is mulling torpedoing her once and for all. "I'm still looking at the Neff situation, and I will in the future," the senator said on "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

Neff isn't Brownback's first flip-flop on Bush's nominees, however. In June, just weeks after calling for an up-or-down vote for the president's judicial picks, Brownback placed a hold on the nomination of veteran Republican fundraiser Julie Finley to be the US Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Finley is the founder of Women in the Senate and House (WISH), which raises money on behalf of female Republican candidates who are prochoice. It was that aspect of Finley's résumé that riveted Brownback's attention, even though abortion is practically irrelevant to the mission of OSCE.

Brownback's hold on Finley was celebrated by the Republican National Coalition for Life, an anti-abortion group founded by Phyllis Schlafly to counter Finley's campaign at the 1992 Republican National Convention for a pro-choice platform. In an interview with me in June 2005 RNCL President Colleen Parro painted Finley as a heathen with no place in her party, despite Finley's decades of fundraising on behalf of conservative candidates.

"There are a lot of issues about which reasonable people can agree," Parro told me. "That takes place all the time in the Republican Party on matters that are not fundamental. But the right to life is fundamental. You are either prolife or you're not. If you're not, and you want to be a Republican, you should just be quiet." (Finley was ultimately confirmed after reassuring Brownback during a private meeting.)

On policy matters, the reactionary element that controls the GOP is absolutist. Either you're with the Christian right, or "you should just be quiet," as Parro said. Yet when it comes to political procedure, the base's ethics are situational at best: all of Bush's nominees deserve up-or-down votes -- except for those with lesbian friends or impure views on wedge issues.

This hypocritical dynamic is the fuel for Brownback's ambition. And as Brownback summons support for his candidacy from the grassroots, a once-muscular conservative coalition grows perilously narrow.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 28, 2006 10:10 AM | Report abuse

"Anyone who's spent any time reading right wing blogs already understood this to be true:

Lohse, a social work master's student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.

Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse's study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person's psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse's explanation.

"Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader," Lohse says. "If your world is very mixed up, there's something very comforting about someone telling you, 'This is how it's going to be.'"

And here's a good example, right here:

"Wall Street had its worst day in more than four months Monday as the dollar weakened and concerns arose about the strength of the retail industry following a rare sales decline at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The Dow Jones industrials fell 158 points."

Welcome to the Dem economy. and after hearing from Rangel and Kerry you can see what is going to happen to the "support the troops" line. I can only guess that we will now consider negotiating with terrorists as the rush to surrender kicks in. and the culture of corruption is now back to full speed ahead with new mugshots.'

umm, somebody should tell zouk the Dems haven't taken office yet--the economy has been run by R's for many years now. the above is the natural result. and the 'culture of corruption' comment is so delusional it's hilarious. the chickenhawk who's seen a battlefield only on TV talks big again about being tough. what a mentally ill farce.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 28, 2006 9:56 AM | Report abuse

lylepink,

You making the cardinal mistake that Democrats have made in elections for almost 20 years. It isn't enough to be right. You have to convince people that you are right. For HRC, that ship has sailed. It doesn't matter whether she deserves the reputation she has with so many people. The fact is that she has that reputation. Polls on her favorability ratings demonstrate that this impression has not gone away. It may not be fair, but that's politics for you.

Posted by: Zathras | November 28, 2006 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is unelectable because she won't pick up any states John Kerry didn't pick up. She has an outside shot at Ohio.

If the Dems want to win more than their own nomination, Wesley Clark is the candidate they should be looking at. He'll carry all Kerry's states plus a few southern states. Not only that, but he's not a lifetime politician--he actually gained leadership and international experience through a meritocracy (the military)!

Posted by: Alan | November 27, 2006 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Over the Holiday and weekend I found the two biggest things for those that oppose Hillary are Envy and Jealously along with the other reasons stated. This has been a good discussion and many different opinions have been put out for the many that read and do not bother to make comments. Hope U feel better soon Chris.

Posted by: lylepink | November 27, 2006 8:57 PM | Report abuse

star11 and JimD: Both of you have the same arguement as well as Debbie. What you are doing is buying the opponents of Hillary as fact, i.e. She is [1] Hated. [2] Polorizing. [3] Unelectable. [4] Polls. [5] Opposition. [6] Dirty Tricks. You can take any one or all of these and there is not even a person, be it dem or repub and if you so desire you can fit any one into each of these caracterations. My over 59 years in the game and I have not seen so much time and money spent to try and bring someone down. That alone should tell you she is doing something rite and the so called fear of a strong woman is so true and scary to both men and women, primarily when that strong woman is so intellegent. Look at upstate NY., Strong repub area and she has the backing there by a pretty good margin. Go to the people that know her and you will find she is none of the things her opponents are trying to pin on her. I dont know how to say it any other way but IMO she is the best the dems have to offer.

Posted by: lylepink | November 27, 2006 8:15 PM | Report abuse

We should endorse Dems who will address global poverty and hunger through the Millennium Development Goals. We are lagging behind other nations and have yet to meet our target of donating 0.7% of our GDP every year. It is not a lot. It is as if every American gave less than 1 penny to the global fund for the eradication of poverty. The Borgen Project, a Seattle-based non-profit, is working to encourage our politicians to address issues of poverty. Those candidates who support the MDGs are the ones we should elect in 2008!!

Posted by: flagrl118 | November 27, 2006 7:44 PM | Report abuse

You can call Hillary the front runner or anything else you want, but I wont vote for her. Her husband was the idiot that started this outsourcing runaway train wreck and everything I've heard leads me to believe she is as in bed with Wall Street and the corrupt gang of investors that brought us George Bush as is....well, Bush and Cheney. So, whoever is running this nonsense, transparently doing a "draft Hillary" campaign, is both ill informed and stupid. Hillary is nothing more than Bush in drag. Forget her!

Posted by: MikeB | November 27, 2006 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"Wall Street had its worst day in more than four months Monday as the dollar weakened and concerns arose about the strength of the retail industry following a rare sales decline at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The Dow Jones industrials fell 158 points."

Welcome to the Dem economy. and after hearing from Rangel and Kerry you can see what is going to happen to the "support the troops" line. I can only guess that we will now consider negotiating with terrorists as the rush to surrender kicks in. and the culture of corruption is now back to full speed ahead with new mugshots.

that didn't take long. but it does show that elections do have consequences. Punishing Rs will turn out to punish all.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2006 4:37 PM | Report abuse

When will we hear from Chris again?

Posted by: star11 | November 27, 2006 3:57 PM | Report abuse

lylepink:

You once asked me why I did not like Hillary Clinton for the Dem candidate and I explained. Could you please explain exactly why you are so crazy about her?

Posted by: star11 | November 27, 2006 3:53 PM | Report abuse

lylepink

I am convinced that Hillary Clinton is unelectable because of her very high negatives in all polls. She is one of the most detested politicians in the country. She might be able to eke out a narrow victory if the political environment remains toxic for Republicans but Hillary at the head of the ticket would spell defeat for many of those newly elected red state Democratic congresspeople.

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 27, 2006 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Debbie and JimD, The thing I believe both of you and many others are missing is the fact that Hillary is very electable and those of you that oppose her are trying to use that as an excuse when both of you oppose her for other reasons. I just cannot buy your arguement and still think the strongest ticket for the dems in 08 is Clinton/Warner.

Posted by: lylepink | November 27, 2006 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Debbie,

I absolutely agree with you on Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 27, 2006 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Debbie,

I absolutely agree with you on Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 27, 2006 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Debbie,

JFK was elected to the House in 1946 and to the Senate in 1952. He ran for vice-president at the 1956 convention when the presidential nominee, Adlai Stevenson, declined to pick a running mate and left it up to the delegates to pick one.

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 27, 2006 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Somebody mentioned the inexperience of this President. May I ask how come so many governors end up elected as president if voters didn´t see their executive experience as an asset to higher office?
Bush was elected twice and served 6 years as the top elected offical of his state, and has been more experience than Teddy Roosevelt has as governor of New York, or even Woodrow Wilson as governor.
Some compare the 2 years in the Senate of JFK to Obama, but they forget that JFK was in the House for a few years and also ran for president in 1956 to give the people across the nation a LOOK at him. So by the time he ran against VP Nixon in 1960, JFK had a national following.
So people complain that the 2008 election is starting too early, but it does take time to get your face out there and get support.
On the matter of Hillary, I agree with
Zathras that she has reached her PEAK, the people who support her have already stood by her. Those who will never support her are also high, so there is no middle ground. And even the Dems see that she is un-electable. She might be the nomination with all of her millions and high support in the polls. But Iowa Dems already are backing away from her. They like Bill, but she is not Bill Clinton. She has almost as much baggage as he does.
The Dems must find a new face, and some fresh ideas for any hope of getting back into the White House

Posted by: Debbie Watson | November 27, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse

That picture would seem to belie the plastic surgery rumor.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 27, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The number of British troops in Iraq will be "significantly" reduced by a "matter of thousands" by the end of next year, Des Browne has pledged.

The Defence Secretary insisted that he would not "allow a single one of the 7,200 total British soldiers, sailors and air personnel to stay in Iraq longer than necessary".

He added: "I can tell you that by the end of next year, I expect numbers of British forces in Iraq to be significantly lower, by a matter of thousands."

Posted by: Anonymous | November 27, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Could you have found a dorkier looking picture of Hillary? She looks like a chipmunk here. Personal thing, Chris?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 27, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

You mean the 'shrill lefties' who don't want US legislation written by global corporations unconcerned by our national interests?

If Hillary sells out the public interest to lobbyists and transnational corporations as many of the ethics-impaired DLCers seem to want, then she be called a sellout.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

'Jacob Hacker has written a very important book. One of the biggest problems that progressives face in American politics is that the game is rigged against them. Over the last thirty years, right wing think tanks and pundits have succeeded in changing the center of gravity of American politics. Ideas such as gutting social protection used to belong to the Birchers and other flat earthers at the fringes of debate. They're now received wisdom among the chattering classes. Jacob Hacker wants to reverse this. He's a political scientist; much of his previous work has shown how the right has worked under the radar to undermine basic social protections. This book, however, isn't a standard piece of political science commentary. It's an attempt to change politics by reshaping the collective wisdom closer to what progressives want.

This is a highly ambitious project. Hacker wants to push back some of the ideological gains that the right wing has made over the last thirty years. A diffuse coalition of conservatives, libertarians and business interests has sought to get rid of broadly based social security and medical benefits and to push for ever lower taxes. They haven't done everything that they set out to do, but they've succeeded in changing the language that policy makers use to think about these issues. The result has been that politicians have been unwilling to protect people from the new risks caused by globalization and market pressures. Indeed, instead of protecting ordinary people, government has helped pile more risks on their heads.

Some examples. Medical costs are growing ever higher, and the health insurance industry is a mess. The result is that people, especially those with no insurance or limited coverage, face ever more financial risks. According to a recent study a quarter of families affected by cancer had to spend all their savings to pay for treatment; one in ten had skimp on food, heat or housing to bear the burden, and 13% went into major debt. As Hacker documents, instead of proper health insurance reform, we're being given individual Health Savings Accounts, which transfer the risks and hard tradeoffs to individuals. Employment is becoming ever more unstable in a globalized world, but government doesn't seem very interested in protecting vulnerable workers. Ordinary families who are faced with these pressures can't easily seek refuge in bankruptcy any more thanks to recent legislation which drastically weakens bankruptcy protections. Finally, traditional defined benefits pension plans have been replaced over time by defined contribution plans, in which individuals bear the risk of stock market slumps. Now, conservatives and libertarians want to get rid of Social Security and replace it with so called 'personalized' accounts, regardless of the massive transition costs that this would involve.'

http://www.firedoglake.com/

Posted by: Anonymous | November 27, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

A couple of things:

1) Obama's rock star status has mostly to do with the fact that he is essentially a blank slate. It might be that Dems will like him even better when they get to know what he has to say, but I doubt it. One of the underreported aspects of his little auto-biography that has been thus far underplayed is his admission to using recreational drugs in the past. I doubt he'll get the free pass that GWB did on it.

2) While I don't like him headlining the ticket, he would make an excellent second line, especially with Edwards. I doubt that a charisma challenged guy like Bayh would put him on the ticket, but it would be a good balance. I think that as the understudy, he would be a net gainer for the ticket.

3) HRC, while doing a lot to dismiss the general conception of her as a shrill leftie, has put herself in a really difficult position, because the shrill lefties are going to view her as a sell out, and the DLC wing is likely to view her with suspicion.

Posted by: Steve | November 27, 2006 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The corporate media will try to bring down Nancy Pelosi, same as they would any other democratic woman.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 27, 2006 9:13 AM | Report abuse

If you do a google search on Condoleezza Rice for president, then you will find a wealth of data. The polls have included Condi just like they have included another NON-candidate by the name of Gore. Until the votes get started in January 2008, we will not have a real list of candidates on both sides. So it is all up in the air and over the next year, we will see who is getting work done for our nation instead of flapping their yaps. Most important is how Nancy Pelosi is seen by the media, and if she is a failure and how it impacts Hillary. If women are given a chance to lead and fail, it would drag down both sides in their efforts to have a woman as president or VP. What the Democrats do for women and by women in politics will reflect on the Republican women too. That is just the way it goes.

Posted by: Cheryl Collins | November 26, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

This race is going to go back to the basics - retail politics - who ever win in NH and Iowa will win 1600.

Posted by: Dad Manning | November 26, 2006 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Rob:

It's highly unlikely that other candidates will skip Iowa when Vilsack is only polling at 10% there, which was the case in the last Des Moines Register poll. It was: Edwards 30%, Hillary 26%, Kerry 12%, Vilsack 10%. I don't think others will be scared away from campaigning in Iowa.

Posted by: Mike | November 26, 2006 5:19 AM | Report abuse

The "rock Star" of Sen. Obama that the media has created have given me more thought of his role in the dems party for the next several years. About giving up the Senate seat. [1] Serve a time at State or the UN and then run for Gov. [2] His age allows many paths to follow and as he becomes more knowledgeable, he will be able to make a more thoughtful choice for what his future may be.

Posted by: lylepink | November 25, 2006 11:16 PM | Report abuse

jconner: Welcome also. You'll learn the informal rules quickly enough. I would add a corrolary to lylepink's comment (although they may not agree). I don't mind comments of other people as long as they are reasonably cited or identified, or a URL link is provided.

Word of caution, the longer the post, the less likely it is to get read. A number of us do that from time to time.

You've seen Rice's presidential public relations specialist above; now you need a dose a Che - you'll see what I mean.

Posted by: Nor | November 25, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

First, Jconner, your post was fine! Don't be afraid of being bashed-- you've got a lot of say. Kuni, your opinion is interesting.

British papers saying US screwing up badly on terrorism...

'A team of suspected terrorists involved in an alleged UK plot to blow up trans-atlantic airliners escaped capture because of interference by the United States, The Independent has been told by counter-terrorism sources.

An investigation by MI5 and Scotland Yard into an alleged plan to smuggle explosive devices on up to 10 passenger jets was jeopardised in August, when the US put pressure on authorities in Pakistan to arrest a suspect allegedly linked to the airliner plot.

As a direct result of the surprise detention of the suspect, British police and MI5 were forced to rush forward plans to arrest an alleged UK gang accused of plotting to destroy the airliners. But a second group of suspected terrorists allegedly linked to the first evaded capture and is still at large, according to security sources.'

Posted by: drndl | November 25, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse

2008 Election: Hillary Clinton Will Restore America Glory

I have been residing in the State of Texas and America in the last 10 years in which I have had the opportunity of witnessing the good and bad not only in the state of Texas but also in whole country. I have traveled and visited over two third of American states mostly by road because I love to see the whole country, I will encourage every Americans to travel more by road to see the beauty of this God given country to be able to realize why everybody loves to come here. It is a society the Mexicans are ready to die in the deserts to come illegally, it a country most people come as tourists only to stay behind after seeing its beauty, this a society that has not been able to know how blessed they are in the eyes of the world. This article any way is not about tourism but about purpose leadership in which America as a country must address.

Leadership

Contrarily to the belief of the far rights nobody or country can afford to deliberately hate America because every family all over the world has a brother, sister uncle or nephew in this great country. The question America must address is very simple. Why is it that US is better loved when ever the Democrat are in the White House and people grudged when the Republicans are in control. Let us look at this very simple scenario during the segregation era in South Africa when Nelson Mandela was in jailed every effort to get the United Nations to compel the segregation government of South Africa to get the Old man released was vetoed by America under the republicans and conservatives party in Great Britain.

The result was complete hatred for the whole US system in Africa. Mandela gained his freedom at a time the Democrats came to office meaning all the lies of Mandela being a communist were all fabricated to justify incarceration of the helpless old man who came out of jail to be a role model for good leadership. America regained its respect and Clinton became a man of respect in Africa. He was the first US president in history to receive a standing ovation at the United Nations.

Under Jimmy Carter a democrat and US president in the seventies. Jimmy Carter was able to get Egypt and Jordan to embrace Israel. Today Israel is at peace with these two countries a feat almost done by President Clinton, which would have led to the end of Israel/Palestinians conflict today. Democrats has always have respect for people in and out of the country. It introduced the social security system to help as retirement package. The last time the minimum wage was increased was during the democrat government. It is all about the common man when it comes to the Democrat

Goodwill

As a president, Bill Clinton era was very golden to every part of the world every immigrant could afford to send money home through Western Union and other money transfer agents. The Goodness of America touched every home in all nooks and crannies of the world. All families continue to pray for the source fund that was enriching each homes in Africa, Asia, South America and Europe. It means all countries through prayers wanted USA blessed. Nobody wanted US leadership questioned but leadership definition has gone beyond the authoritarian leadership to diplomacy and sincere manipulations I believe this was not part of the handing over note Bill Clinton left for Bush administration.

What happened to all the goodwill Bill Clinton government acquired for America worldwide?
What happened to the era of 22 million jobs, a standing ovation for a US president at the United Nations and a situation that was leading to a debt free society as well as eradication of welfare system and complete respect for the middle class and a system that produced Bill Gate and may generations of billionaires?

The Iraq war has today taken over 300 billion dollars from the system without any hope that it may end in two to ten months, what happened to our 2700 men in uniform that lost their lives and over 25,000 wounded soldiers and amputees, what about their families, the sorrowful sprits of these dead soldiers not being there for their children, how do we want these affected families to raise their children as single parents? What about those who got divorced because of the war?

One of the failures of American policies is to openly embrace any country Britain has been before without checking the hook behind the British policy of assimilation in most its colonies.
Iraq was a loosely connected country left behind by Britain, it is very surprising that US never realized this before Senator Baden first suggested the country should be separated into three countries, which may be the only exit plan for Bush Administration. America policy makers must look at the Berlin conference of 1885 to know how most countries the British, French, Germany and Italy loosely connected.

For US to gain back all the respects it has lost the country needs a leader like Hillary Clinton because she is very smart, intelligent and beside she will be tapping on the goodwill of her husband Bill Clinton to reopen most of the door of diplomacy closed by the Bush Administration

Secondly, it will be a complete change in US policy with a woman in the White House after men has been there for over 270 years. Hillary as a president will be wonderful and America will regain its lost glory otherwise out hatred for most US policies more countries like North Korea will be going for nuclear Bomb just to challenge US leadership.

Finally, Hillary Clinton as the messiah of the new generation of leadership in America will usher in a fresh air into the White House and complete departure from the failure of the past.

Zents K Sowunmi
Dallas Texas
10/11/2006

Posted by: Kunle I Sowunmi | November 25, 2006 7:17 AM | Report abuse

When will more be known on whether all except the local resident candidate will skip Iowa.

Rob
http://robwire.com

Posted by: Rob | November 25, 2006 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Tina: I admire your support for Condi, however a friend spent a couple hours looking over the comments, doesn't have a computer at home, and as much as you would like Condi to give it a try in 08, I cannot see it happening nor could my friend. Of course Condi is the most powerful woman today but in a short time that will be Rep. Pelosi as Speaker of the House and third in line for the POTUS.

Posted by: lylepink | November 24, 2006 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, shmillary. If the war continues to go badly, whoever the democrats run in 08 will win. Enough of all that, though, I thought these "election reports" were pretty funny. Anybody know any other satirical reports? http://hotbovine.com/infowad2.html
and this one too.
http://hotbovine.com/infowad1.html1.html

Posted by: gangreen | November 24, 2006 7:10 PM | Report abuse

If you had any doubt that huge transnational drug companies had the entire republican party in their pockets, here's your proof -- they say so:

'We woke up the day after the election to a new world," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. "We're going to have tough days ahead of us."

A post-election e-mail to executives at the drug company GlaxoSmithKline details just how tough. "We now have fewer allies in the Senate," says the internal memo, obtained by The Washington Post. "Thus, there is greater risk over the next two years that bad amendments will be offered to pending legislation." The company's primary concerns are bills that would allow more imported drugs and would force price competition for drugs bought under Medicare.

The defeat of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) "creates a big hole we will need to fill," the e-mail says. Sen.-elect Jon Tester (D-Mont.) "is expected to be a problem," it says, and the elevation to the Senate of Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) "will strengthen his ability to challenge us."

Posted by: drindl | November 24, 2006 3:34 PM | Report abuse

TZ, Howard Dean failed to build grassroots support in Iowa, That is the point. What you saw were bus loads of young people with orange hats knocking on doors. They were not from IOWA. Get it?

JayPe, yes, experience counts. Look at this latest poll:
National poll finds Secretary of State Rice is the most powerful woman in America


11/22/2006 4:00 PM
(New York)

A national poll finds Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the most powerful woman in the U.S..

That's word from a Quinnipiac University national poll that found 45 percent of American voters surveyed say Rice tops the charts for the most powerful female, followed New York Senator Hillary Clinton with 29 percent, and then Speaker-elect of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi with 23 percent.

The poll showed Democrats split with 34 percent for Clinton, 33 percent for Rice and 30 percent for Pelosi. Republicans go with Rice over Clinton 60 to 22 percent, and 15 percent for Pelosi. Independent voters back Rice at 43 percent, with 29 percent for Clinton and 24 percent for Pelosi.

Out of these women, 56 percent polled say Senator Clinton is qualified to be President, half say Rice has the potential to be in the White House, and 47 percent do not think Pelosi is qualified to be the country's commander in chief.

To Troy, you might not vote for a black or a woman, but in the past year, many polls show voters will support a woman IF she is seen as qualified and powerful. So based on the poll I just copied, you can plainly see the voters consider Condi and Hillary as qualified but Condi is seen as the most powerful. So we shall see what happens in the next year.

Posted by: Tina | November 24, 2006 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Mike your reasoning sounds good but the reality is something else again IMO. The role I've outlined earlier for Richardson seems the most practical for him to play i.e. UN or State. Byah is great for the Senate at the present time.

Posted by: lylepink | November 24, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse


It's real simple: the 2006 voters want
the screaming to stop, competency and
moderation to be a reality in governance,
and don't seem to be driven by the same
needs of the media for entertaining dramatic conflict. This will carry over
to the 2008 contests. Don't rule out those
single digit guys just yet, especially the one with about the same amount of money that Hillary has: Evan Bayh.

Either Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson will be
the nominee. One a former Governor, the other one a current one. Besides, those
two would be most electable.

Posted by: Mike Jamieson | November 24, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I have a strong feeling that Edwards will win the nomination. There are strong reservations about Hillary Clinton as being the nominee and even if that percentage is only 27% that number is likely to unite behind Clinton's strongest challenger to the nomination...John Edwards. They can put him over the edge. On the ground, or where I live in Ohio no one wants Hillary to win the nomination.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | November 24, 2006 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I still think that the tickets of Gore-Obama, Clinton-Edwards make the most sense. The first weds experience with charisma, the second competence with likeability. I prefer not to kick the generational realignment issue down the road past 2008, hence my preference for Gore-Obama.

Hillary, I believe has shown that she has the skills to be a first rate Senate Majority Leader-- why won't people have career aspirations for positions they are best suited for? Edwards and Obama are the two most skilled Democratic politicians in the democratic field, I think there is an experience gap with them running together, but I might be wrong. They are both quick learners, but would the American public give them a chance? I have my doubts.

Gore is prepared to be president, today. I don't think his numbers are all that bad among Democrats and they are probably on the low side (recall he had 20 percent support in June before he made all of those statements showing little interest in joining the toxic fray). It's also troubling to me that Gore today probably could not win in Tennesse, but I see no such problem for the ticket in 2008 winning Illinois and much of the Midwest.

I think if this team were to run, Gore would need to learn from the mistake of Kerry in not giving Edwards a more prominent role. Obama is such an attractive political figure in his own right, it might be smart to run him as a virtual co-president. I think that Gore has less ego problems than Kerry and that a Gore-Obama ticket governed by the candidates inner-compass rather than driven by pollsters and political consultants might be able to take advantage of this historic moment of paradigm change.

A VP run on this ticket also preserves Obama's long-term capital as a future presidential candidate and also provides a 16 year horizon for Democrats to build a solid new paradigm. This ticket makes so much sense to me, I guess the only good argument is that Gore stylistically puts off people, but this is soooo shallow people (besides Gore's gotten better at projecting a better public persona, of late).

Gore also can enter the race at any time over the next year and raise the money to be the anti-Hillary candidate. There are solid intellectual reasons for a Gore-Obama ticket. An important issue that still needs to be resolved is their chemistry together. If it worked, it would give evidence to the saying that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Then even states like Tennessee might even be in reach-- as well as Gore-Obama landslide. I read a Townhall column the other day that warned that Gore might well be more electable than conservatives think-- time to demonize him. Sometimes it makes sense to pay attention what the opposition is thinking, conservatives certainly monitor what progressives are thinking (I'm sure some conservatives who are reading this may be taking my comments more seriously than some of my progressive compatriots and hope my argument doesn't break through-- for all their talk of early Christmas presents).

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | November 24, 2006 10:22 AM | Report abuse

was to permanently put the Republicans in power........


but Republicans and Democrats are both parties for the wealthy and elitists....with a few exceptions.


The senator from Oklahoma who called for the Bridge to Nowhere monies ceded for Alaska to be sent to Katrina, was a Republican.

I believe Kerry took a dive in '04, effectively giving the election to bush....


Posted by: Roves goal | November 23, 2006 8:34 PM | Report abuse

that many Hillary haters are people that are actually afraid of the Clintons.


The Clintons interrupted George H.W. Bush from doing what his son did.


They were not Washington INSIDERS.


Only Washington INSIDERS can effectively rape America. They have the connections to do that. George W. Bush had his fathers people to inherit.... The current fiasco, that I would call a PNAC, coup, is why term limits and the National Guard were created....so someone couldn't stay in power long enough to take over the government and use it for personal means.


surprise.


Hillary Clinton inspires fear in neo cons. And I would put a dollar to a donut that they are the ones call ing themselve liberal, and saying that they wourld never vote for Hillary.


it is called seeding, a form of a falsifying information, by planting it.


Help America to be a better place to live in by telling the truth.

Don't work for a party, work for the truth, and ask that what is printed isn't spin....especially if you write .

Posted by: ps. I have an impression | November 23, 2006 8:30 PM | Report abuse

and its going to take some to return the United States to what it used to be.


That someone had better be looking at repairing the damage to the middle class.


They should also be looking at stopping outsourcing.


And thinking about redefining American companies as companies that hire at least 95% American workers.


Think we could have repaired any infrastructure in the United States for the $380 BILLION SPENT IN IRAQ?


When the people in Washington DC, spend all of their time greasing the wheels for their friends who are internationals are they commiting treason?


think about that.


Politics need to reflect what is best for the country, not what is best for the top 1/2 of 1%.


When there is no place to go, when our borders have been reached, it is time to understand that the ecology of business, humanity, emotions, and the physical world are not seperable.


Creating an untenable situation for a portion of the population is not a feasible option for an advanced society. I would like to live in an advanced society.


That is attainable, easily. Obfuscation is a disease. Dumbing people down to control them, hurts the country.

Posted by: I enjoy people with vision... | November 23, 2006 8:22 PM | Report abuse

jconner: I will not "bash" you very much in that your comments appear to be what this/these discussions are about. Most of us disagree all the time and I, for one, do not like to see comments that are not from the person making them, but comes from some source other than what they think or feel themself and is just being repeated by them. A good joke never hurts and from time to time I've seen a few in my almost three months of making comments here.

Posted by: lylepink | November 23, 2006 12:40 PM | Report abuse

(First post, jumping in, hopig not to get bashed *too* severely, but taking the chance.)

There seem to be ardent people of both sides on this blog. There also seem some very much in the "fringe" element. That doesn't both me--I can't discuss politics with one of my closest, dearest friends because he & I disagree so passionately about it. Yet when we were each going through terribler personal hardship, we were almost the only ones to support each other. So yes, friendship can cross political lines. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case on most blogs and in America in general nowadays. I'm showing a bias here, but I attribute that to the Rovian model of playing to the far-far-right (which I call fascist, not neo-con), and insult anyone who disagrees, from calling them Democrat (rather than Democratic, which is a calculated move--research it, as I did, & you'll find it is), to traitors, all the while defending the indefensible with inanae arguments. One example: The question "would you support torture if it were of someone who knew an a-bomb was within minutes of being detonated in a major city?" That specious argument, a super-straw-man, is used to try to get people to say that torture is o.k. It makes contrary-to-fact assumptions that 1) torture works (every single expert says it doesn't); 2) they wouldn't lie; 3) they wouldn't rather die than reveal the intel (suicide bombers show that to be false); 4) they've managed to plant it, avoiding all our defenses...this goes on & on. The argument is speciaous. At its core it becomes "would you rape and kill your pre-teen daughter" for the same result? At some point, America has to lead in moral values, and we have, sad to say, lost that under the guise of fighting a "war" on "terrorism"--which is an *idea* not a *group*. You can only wage war on ideas with other ideas, not with military force. Terrorists are not all the same, and by treating them as the same you make the Waco people the same as Al-Queda, Hamas the same as the Contras, current US "militias" the same as neo-Nazis--its' like a "war on thought"--it can't be won by military force.

The US, if you look at congresisonal district maps and not just states, is completely purple with portions of red & blue. I live in one of the reddest of red states (Indiana), yet, we are really almost split down the middle--it's just we're passionate partisans on both sides.

If the conservatives (whom Goldwater's grandaughter wrote eloquently about recently as being NOT what Barry would have called "conservative") insist on making the term "liberal" (as well as "ACLU" and "Democrat") epithets, then the dems have been responding, as Kerry did to the Swift Boating, by being too nice, disjointed, and unresponsive. Wiretapping without due process, denying habeous corpus, jailing innocent people at the president's whim, torture--these are all fascist tactics, and liberals should not be afraid to use that word when talking about people who are throwing around "liberal" as a swear word. Decorum should prevail, but sh_t has to be met with sh_t and not with wimpy "that's not truuueee" responses.

As far as who will/can win on the demo side (we already know McCain will ge tthe R side), it has to be someone who can definitely carry at least one state which is mostly red. It also has to be someone who can be above-the-fray and pick a VP attack dog like still-convinced-Dems-are-traitors Cheney. And it has to be someone who won't galvanize the base of the R's to turn out.

So HRC is O-U-T. The top contenders who can possibly pull in a mostly-red state are Warner (who could change his mind--and say "the people want me; they have spoken; I heed their call"), Bayh, Edwards, and Gore (who already was elected President once and could remind people of that at every turn, as could his VP choice). Fantastic 2nd-placers would include Obama, Edwards (again), Clark, and *maybe* HRC. The idea here is if the othe rparty spends all their time & money attacking the VP candidate, they are not attacking the top of the ticket--while you are.

I think a Warner/Edwards, Warner/Obama, Warner/Bayh, Warner/Clark, Warner/HRC, Edwards/Obama, Edwards/Bayh, Edwards/HRC, Edwards/Clark or (*really* dark horse!) Edwards/Nunn or Warner/Nunn or Obama/Nunn or Nunn/HRC ticket would beat a McCain/Rudy ticket. Polls that show combo tix are hard to find, but they suggest that it's too close to call for the very few that have any of the combos listed above.

No, no one will ever convince the 31% who still belive that al-Queda was tied to Iraq, that Iraq was behind 9/11, that there were WMDs, that "stay the course" is right, and that Dubya is the new Christ, marching us to Crusading Victory over the Muslims will believe that ANY Democratic ticket will be good for the country. That's their right. And that is put forth by so much media (both TV and Radio, plus Blogs) that the old argument that reporters (who are overruled by conservative editors/publishers) and mainstream news (which is watched less than any of the right-wing radio shows ar elistened to daily) "prove" a "liberal media bias" has been, for a long time, pure fallacy.

McCain (whom I actually like, except for his exteme anti-Asian bias, which I understand but do not appreciate, having Asian relatives), and a handful of other R's (Shays, Olympia, even Chris Matthews sometimes) often make intelligent points, unlike some posters on either side of this blog. But his becoming "Mr. Flip-Flop" to try to pander to the right-wing, as well as his "increase the troops" in the face of exhaustion to the point of lowering standards and still not making recruitment quotas--perhaps he should get with Rangle; a draft is the only way to really accomplish what he's advocating) shows me that even the R front-runner has no real ideas nor an understanding of terrorism, torture, how this repeats McCarthyism and Viet Nam, nor an adequate idea for honestly working with the other side of the aisle or listening to the overwhleming voice of the American public. That is not what we need in a President (that's been proven by W).

So a Democratic ticket of one of the above--my personal favourite two being Warner/Edwards and Edwards/Obama (with Bayh & Clark & Nunn in the wings) is, in my very humble opinion, the best hope for restoring democracy, human rights, freedom, and the American Ideal to America and the word, overcoming the fear/smear of the last 12 years.

jconner
indiana

Posted by: jconner | November 23, 2006 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Happy Thanksgiving everyone

TZ, I think you are far too pessimistic about the Democrats' chances for 2008. The key to any election is the swing voters. These are people not tied to any party or any ideology. Polling showed that these voters swung heavily for Bush in 2004 based on national security concerns. They broke heavily for the Democrats in the 2006 mid-terms. My theory (expressed in here frequently and one held by many others) is that the Democratic failures in presidential elections since 1972 is largely due to the fact that many swing voters do not trust them with national security. The Democratic wins were in 1976, 1992 and 1996. 1976 was the Watergate election and Ford nearly overcame a huge deficit in the polls to win that election. Clinton was elected and re-elected after the collapse of the Soviet Union and before 9/11. National security was not so pressing in the minds of the voters. The fiasco in Iraq has given the Democrats an opening on national security due to the demonstrated incompetence of the neo-cons. They will still need to nominate someone with credibility as commander-in-chief. Like you, I am a Wesley Clark supporter.

As for the Democrats' chances to win a red state - all they would need is to add one state to the 2000 or 2004 results. That is certainly doable in today's environment. Whether it will be in 2008 or not remains to be seen since two years is an eternity in politics. Poll after poll has shown that a majority of Americans agree with Democratic positions on most issues.

If the political environment in 2008 is similar to today's, almost any Democrat could probably win a narrow victory. I do not think Senator Clinton could win, though. I seriously doubt that she can overcome her image as a left wing harridan. I do not buy that image but it has been imprinted in the public mind for 15 years. I fear that many red state Democratic congressmen would go down to defeat if the ticket were headed by Kerry or Gore. I would like to see a Democrat who could appeal to the center and who has credibility as C-in-C. Obviously Clark heads that list in my mind. A 4 star general would have a great deal of appeal in the red and purple states. Clark could not be easily caricatured as weak on national security. I would like to see a successful Demcoratic red state governor like Katherine Sibelius of Kansas as his running mate. My second choice would be Senator Biden for president and Clark as VP.

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 23, 2006 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Personally I think the Democrats have it all wrong. How can the Democrats honestly think that they can take can take back the White House if they are serious about Hillary. Let's face it, if our country is serious enough to elcet George Bush and people like Rick Santorum, be it right, wrong, or indifferent, it says that our country is feeling very conservative right now. What Democrats need to realize is the fact that their new majority in congress is due to Bush, and not people suddenly agreeing with the Democrats. Instead, what we need is a less polarizing canidate like say Bayh, or Vilsack. Obama looks good because he can appeal to the African American vote as well as being both left on economic issues as well as being right on social issues according to Time magazine. Instead, if Democrats go with the first woman canidate, the country will have perhaps another 2000 election debacle.

Posted by: dertingerlover887 | November 23, 2006 10:17 AM | Report abuse

TZ: What I was referring to was your mention of Chris Matthews. CM is a hater of the Clintons that goes back many years and for you to make your first comments and right off you just happen to mention him. The other mentioned has explained. I also find, as you mentioned in your comment, that you appear to be falling for the trap that she cannot win any Red State and only about 10 are really in play. Another thing in her favor will be the Illegal Immigration that is going on and I think Bubba signed into law in the early 90's and GW is not enforceing it and several Govs. have filed suit to be repaid their expenses for another law that has allegedly been violated by GW. I also think this is very early and anything can happen but the time is now and Hillary is by far the best choice the dems can make.

Posted by: lylepink | November 22, 2006 7:57 PM | Report abuse

lylepink,

What do you mean by "T2: Please dont give yourself away so easily in the future. You are about as suttle in your comments as star11 tried to be."? Who is star11? BTW, it's TZ, not T2. And I don't think I was disrepectful to others or their opinions, at least not worse than some of the postings I have read. Peace on earth and in this website.

Posted by: TZ | November 22, 2006 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Drop what you are doing and check out Joe Biden's website..
A Biden--Clark ticket wouldsweep the board.

Posted by: lemongrover | November 22, 2006 6:10 PM | Report abuse

T2: Please dont give yourself away so easily in the future. You are about as suttle in your comments as star11 tried to be. Let us at least discuss as important event as the election of the POTUS in a manner that shows a little respect for those that do choose to run and those that choose not to run. And try and respect opinions of others that you disagree with.

Posted by: lylepink | November 22, 2006 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Happy Thanksgiving (for those who celebrate it) to you as well Nor'Easter and to all posters!

Also, please lets wait for the primary debates and campaigns before coming to firm decisions on who is electable and who isn't. How things are going in Iraq and Afghanistan could also play a role in the primary as foreign policy knowledge (note I didn't use the word experience!) may become more or less important.

Posted by: Jason from Whittier, CA | November 22, 2006 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I have never posted here before, but cannot help but putting in my two cents after reading so many rediculous comments.

First, like it or not, let's face the fact --- No Democrate candidate, at least those mentioned so far, can win any Red State in 2008! For a Demoncrate to win even a few of these states (AR, MO, LA, NC, VA, for example) right now, it takes a true (or "natural" in Joe Klein's word) polical genius that shows up once in 50 years and some more! Too bad the Comeback Kid from AR cannot run again. Gore could not even win his own state!! (Otherwise there would have been no Florida recount AND no war in Iraq!) And for all those who are rooting for Edwards, can you honestly believe that he can win NC in 2008? I volunteered for Gen. Clark in 2004 because I thought, and still think, he is genuine and a true American hero. But he probably was too genuine to be a good politician! Sad! I doubt he can win AR even if somehow he ends up to be the Democratic candidate in 2008 (long shot at best). So forget about the RED states and Dean's 50 state strategy!! (To me, the latter was a pure political strategy to pander the party chairmen rather than the real votes in those states! But it is a separate issue for another time.)

Second, HRC may only have 30-40% chance of winning in 2008. Chris Matthew thought she had 40%. I think maybe even less. But that is not the point. The point is that no one else the Democrats can put up will have a better chance!! The electoral map is such that probably 40 of the 50 states will have no competition no matter who is nominated from either party. And for the rest of them, I think HRC has even or better chance of winning that any other Democrats. The nation is so divided that any small, unexpected event (such as one effective ad, one gaffe in the debate, etc.) leading to the election date may tip the balance and swing the election to one candidate. We can analyze the pros and cons of the candidacy of HRC or any other candidate you favor right now, I argue it is almost moot at this point. Let's wait at least until the Holiday season is over.

Third, grass root support is way overblown. It is amazing that so many people emphasized grass root support and complained about HRC's lack of campaigning in Iowa for the so-called grass root support. If the grass root support is so important, Howard Dean would have won the nominee in 2004! It has almost no bearing in the national election and very little impact even in the nominating process! Sorry for your folks in IA and NH. Check the last few elections to see how many candidates who won these two states' primaries have ever won the biggest prize.

Let's enjoy the Holiday (whatever you are celebrating) and victories in both Houses (while we can before they actually do anything you may not like!). 2008 will be a fun ride!!

Posted by: TZ | November 22, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

A Happy Thanksgiving! to all Fix posters.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 22, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Zathras: I think what you and others are missing in the polls is the biggest factor in that the name plays an important role. A good example was a recent CNN, I think, poll that gave Hillary a higher poll number when Rodham was used instead of just Hillary Clinton. Hillary Rodham Clinton polled much better. Another factor most of us miss is the popularity of Bubba and just how much of our good feeling about him will in turn help Hillary and I for one firmly feel this will go a long way in her election. Again, I do not know if she will run but am firmly convinced that if she does choose to run you can take it to the bank that she will win. Any question anyone has about her chance of winning and I will be glad to explain in detail how she is a "sure winner". Not any reason I have seen as yet put the slightest dent in my reasoning or feeling that the POTUS is waiting for her if she wants it.

Posted by: lylepink | November 22, 2006 3:27 PM | Report abuse

It is the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms. The point is that an armed citizenry is a restraint on tyranny. Listen, I am not a gun nut, but where I live, Washington D.C., only the criminals are allowed to have guns and it hasn't exactly curbed our violence.

Posted by: TG | November 22, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"What's the singular of militia?"

militiaman

Posted by: bsimon | November 22, 2006 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"As a last little gift to America, Senator George Allen...introduced what may be his final piece of legislation: a bill that would allow the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks...Senator Allen's bill is, of course, being cheered by the gun lobby, which sees it not as an assault on public safety but as a way of nationalizing the armed paranoia that the National Rifle Association and its cohorts stand for."

Most people who are passionate about it have never read it. It's less than 30 words, and reads:

Amendment II.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The NRA is headquartered in Northern Virginia (Fairfax), so Allen probably owes them big time. The Conservative Virginia legislature began allowing concealed weapons to be carried into recreation centers and bars a few years ago.

What's the singular of militia?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 22, 2006 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the poll numbers, what is important is not just the numbers as they stand today, but instead what the numbers are likely to do in the future. How much upward mobility can Clinton really have? Everyone has a rock-solid, immovable opinion on her. If people don't support her now, they never will. I don't see her moving past 40 percent.

Posted by: Zathras | November 22, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

DTM: A point well taken. A good examlpe would be Obama could serve out his Senate term, either/or way he would still be viable for more Senate terms in the future or try for other things, such as a run for POTUS. This idea of mine is not set in stone. Just a good example of what could very well be the thing of the future in that all folks seeking the POTUS would announce thier Cabinet picks before the November election, or at least a list of possibilities they were considering.

Posted by: lylepink | November 22, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Gore will keep the passion alive. Always good to have someone that believes in what they are saying in the race, quite refreshing actually. Politics is so constrained, compromising and scripted at times that candidates are more concerned about not making mistakes than speaking from their hearts - if they still have one. I am not a gore fan personally, but I do believe that we need to be better environmental stewards in this country and less arrogant on the world stage. I would much rather have him and his nothing to lose passion in the race than Hillary Rodham Focus Group Clinton. As for Edwards, I feel like his passion is a put on. He is an ambulance chaser after all and I just get the snake charmer vibe from him. The guy in the old westerns that is selling some potion that can cure everything. Obama I just see as to green to be president (I think the same of Edwards). Of the dems, I have most consistently been impressed with Biden who seems to get no love from the national press.

Posted by: TG | November 22, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

we have so many armchair generals in this 'war' -- maybe if they would have all actually volunteered to fight it we might have had enough troops to win while there was still a chance...

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20061120


http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20061121


http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20061122


NOT A CHANCE WITH OUR CURRENT CHICKENHAWKS!

Posted by: Anonymous | November 22, 2006 1:49 PM | Report abuse

drindl: you are quite on target about the consultants. The thing I never could understand in my more than 59 [yes, fifty nine] years involved in politics is why or how does one consult about their beliefs? Having folks go forth and spread your message makes a heck of a lot more sense to me.

Posted by: lylepink | November 22, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse

lylepink,

I'll have to respectfully disagree. Even term-limited governors can always run for, say, the Senate, and you are also advocating things like pulling Obama out of the Senate, where he could serve indefinitely.

Posted by: DTM | November 22, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

By the way, I also find it curious that a poll in which Obama finishes ahead of Edwards, despite Edwards having been the VP nominee in 2004, is being spun by some as good news for Edwards.

In fact, I see Edwards as the person with the greatest problem beating Obama in the primaries. Edwards can't really criticize Obama for his lack of experience in government, and of course Edwards voted for the Iraq War resolution. So, if Edwards isn't ahead in these early polls, I have a hard time seeing him making the case down the road.

Incidentally, for what it is worth, Rasmussen had Clinton at 29%, Obama at 22%, Gore at 13%, and Edwards at 10%.

Posted by: DTM | November 22, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

DTM: Yes! I am very serious and here are some reasons why this is a great idea. Think back over a number of years and you will find that a number of pols have coveted Cabinet positions above all else. The Govs. I've mentioned are preyy well term limited. The others are in a position where it is not feasible for any of them to run for anything but POTUS in 08 and most are young enough to even challenge each other, which would be good in 2016 when Warners term expires as VP at the end of the day each would be able to point out their varied work expierence and you could very well have another example of how the dems can work together with the very best people in the jobs that fit them the best. Bottom line is most of them want power and this, IMO, is the best way to hold on to it.

Posted by: lylepink | November 22, 2006 12:56 PM | Report abuse

meant to say

'Rather we get the childish cultish ones, who are drudge or limbaugh fans, and they are NOT concerned with policy or their country,'

Posted by: Anonymous | November 22, 2006 12:38 PM | Report abuse

TG -- to address your comments about:

'The post about wanting to have jesse jackso or al sharpton as a running mate is dead on. That would be a suicidal ticket. Pointing that out makes you an idiot?'

Well of course it would be suicidal. That was precisely the issue -- it was a taunt, a silly, schoolyard taunt. I'm sure that's why the poster was annoyed by it.

We don't get very many serious conservatives here, who relly have something to say. Rather we get the childish cultish one, who are drudge or limbaugh fans, and they are concerned with policy or their country, just some juvenile taunting about 'winning' and being 'right'.

And I completely agree with you about Gore. He is terrific when he is allowed to be himself. He got tripped up in 2000 when he listened to Beltway consultants. What a great many Dems are saying today is get rid of the consultants/pundits who have lost you several elections, starting immediately with James Carville, Bob Shrum, and Donna Brazile. Just show them the door and run on what you believe in.

Posted by: drindl | November 22, 2006 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Last week I cited a CNN poll that showed Senator Clinton's poll numbers improved when her middle name was used as opposed to just Hillary Clinton. Rodham will stay.

Vilsack will posture for VP and this may benefit Hillary in Iowa. He may end up with a cabinet post. Doubtful of anything higher for just the iowa caucus.

Bill Richardson, a former Clinton administration official, is more likely choice for VP if HRC rolls to primary victories. I think he is our best chance for President but should Hillary take the nomination, he would be at the top of the list.

Edwards looks solid in solidfying the alternative candidate to Senator Clinton right now.

Obama's weak 2nd choice showing shows a lack of depth, experience and mane recognition. All could be overcome but highly dubious at this point.

Clark is "very" popular where, exactly? Secretary of Defense maybe.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Posted by: RMill | November 22, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Two points.

1. I Drindl's comment about Gore being a passionate and good speaker now is not a new point. He used to be that way. I was watching the war room, the documentary of the Clinton '92 win. There was a speech featured in it where gore was on the stump and was fiery, charasmatic and had all those charms and passion that were absent in his vapid wooden indian campaign in 2000. Perhaps, being himself again he will give it a real go. Should be interesting.

2. Read this post: "Why do idiots even bother posting crap like this?

you're at the wrong site ... you must be looking for WashingtonTIMES.com"

I think it is unfortunate. I am a conservative and what I like about this blog is the free exchange of ideas that is usually pretty civil here. Is like mindedness the political ethic we are most striving for today? The post about wanting to have jesse jackso or al sharpton as a running mate is dead on. That would be a suicidal ticket. Pointing that out makes you an idiot?

Posted by: TG | November 22, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

lylepink,

By the way, I'm not sure if you are serious, but I don't think the Democrats would really want to take so many of their most popular and successful politicians and put them into unelected cabinet positions (rather, the Party would probably prefer to have most of them winning elective offices against Republicans).

Posted by: DTM | November 22, 2006 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Not so fast about Gov. Vilsack being "Clinton's boy" and taking Iowa off the table, Iowa caucus goers are savvy and can smell a set up.

Edwards, Obama and Clark are very popular, and Gore could influence also. If Hillary skips Iowa it will be to her peril, Vilsack can't do it for her, doubt he will even get "favorite son" majority support.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | November 22, 2006 12:07 PM | Report abuse

The old man is getting testy and senile -- 'stunned', indeed....

'ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates - Former President George H.W. Bush took on Arab critics of his son Tuesday during a testy exchange at a leadership conference in the capital of this U.S. ally.

"My son is an honest man," Bush told members of the audience harshly criticized the current U.S. leader's foreign policy.

The oil-rich Persian Gulf used to be safe territory for former President Bush, who brought Arab leaders together in a coalition that drove Saddam Hussein's troops from Kuwait in 1991. But gratitude for the elder Bush, who served as president from 1989-93, was overshadowed at the conference by hostility toward his son, whose invasion of Iraq and support for Israel are deeply unpopular in the region.

"We do not respect your son. We do not respect what he's doing all over the world," a woman in the audience bluntly told Bush after his speech.

Bush, 82, appeared stunned as others in the audience whooped and whistled in approval.

A college student told Bush his belief that U.S. wars were aimed at opening markets for American companies and said globalization was contrived for America's benefit at the expense of the rest of the world. Bush was having none of it.

"I think that's weird and it's nuts," Bush said. "To suggest that everything we do is because we're hungry for money, I think that's crazy. I think you need to go back to school."

Posted by: Anonymous | November 22, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

By the way, I don't see the Harold Ford example being particularly bad for Obama. Ford was running for a seat held by the Republicans, his opponent ran a solid and well-funded campaign, and Ford had some baggage associated with his family name. Despite all that, he got 48% of the vote (which, by the way, indicates that there was no "Wilder effect"). I don't think that proves that someone like Obama could not win in places like Tennessee--just the opposite, I think it shows that Obama would have a legitimate shot at putting states like Tennessee in play, particularly if he could successfully promote himself as a new sort of politician.

Posted by: DTM | November 22, 2006 11:28 AM | Report abuse

what's missing from this debate is the question, 'what's the climate going to be for americans in late '07 and early '08?'

things that will be important:
- iraq/homeland security
- the slowing economy (which is going to get worse before it gets better)
- corruption
- energy independence and climate change

of course the personality and charisma of a candidate is important, but since the country is in such rough shape under bush and republican stewardship, american's i think will have a higher standard this time. instead of 'who do i want to have a beer with' the question will be 'who's going to feel my economic pain and fix the huge mess W left us?'

the market of voters will demand proven competence. clark, hillary, edwards, and obama are clearly very smart, very competent, and likeable decent people. however, none of them screams commander and chief executive of america.

jon corzine of nj can claim that description and has the track record to prove it. he voted against the war. he got money for port and chemical security. he was ceo of goldman sachs. he's doing a phenomenal job as nj's governor. he's an expert on the US treasury and in markets in general. the economy is going to be the most important issue in 08 and he's the guy who will be able to speak to individuals most honestly and competently on that subject.

let's hope he runs.

Posted by: sam | November 22, 2006 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Ok, let's dispense with two things first:

Neither Hilary nor Obama can win the general. Nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room, but its rather simple:

1) A woman could win the Presidency in 2008, but it would have to be the right woman. HRC is not that person. She starts the election season down 40-30 because 40% of the public would never vote for her under any circumstance and 30% would vote for a Dem no matter what they were. That means to win the popular vote, she'd have to take 2/3 of the voters who wouldn't be locked in to start. She has neither the message nor the charisma to seal that deal.

2) No black man could win in 2008, no matter who, no matter the circumstances. Blacks have won statewide top of the tickets races exactly 5 times since Reconstruction. 2 in MA, 2 in IL and 1 in VA. Harold Ford ran a perfect campaign in TN and lost. Tom Bradley couldn't win in CA. Obama couldn't win PERIOD.

So what are we left with: Edwards, Clark and Gore. Edwards has the hopeful message and could unite the Democratic party. While people seem to want to focus on the South and a North/South split, I think that the more appropriate comparison is rural/urban. You don't have to break the Solid South to win the Presidential election, all you have to do given the dynamics is add Ohio or Florida and pick up some of the Mountain/Northern Plains states. Edwards at the top of the ticket could force Repubs to spend some money in the border South, VA,NC, TN anyone? And then if he can put MO, CO, AZ, and some of the smaller Mountain states in play, the math is right.

Posted by: Steve | November 22, 2006 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I will go a litte further for my dream team of 08 Clinton/Warner. Gov. Vilsack for Sec. of Agriculture and in this manner would pretty well sew up Iowa. Gov. Sibelius and Gov. Napalantio would be Securiy, Homeland and Adviser, each/either one would be great in these jobs.

Posted by: lylepink | November 22, 2006 10:58 AM | Report abuse

'Consider the unique problems faced by the corporate suits at CACI International, a defense contractor whose services have included "coercive" interrogations of prisoners in Iraq -- interrogations most people simply call "torture."

Think about the image problems a major multinational corporation faces after becoming inextricably linked with the abuses at Abu Ghraib, a firm whose employees have contributed to the iconic images of the occupation of Iraq -- the symbols of American cruelty and immorality in an illegal war. What can a company like that possibly do to protect its brand name after contributing to the greatest national disgrace since the My Lai massacre?

CACI's strategy has been two-fold: its flacks have distorted well-documented facts in the public record beyond recognition, and its senior management has lawyered up, suing or threatening to sue just about every journalist, muckraker and government watchdog who's dared to shine a light on the firm's unique role as a torture profiteer.

Lately, the company's sights have been set squarely on Robert Greenwald, director of Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers, in which CACI plays a starring role. Greenwald has been in a back-and-forth with CACI's CEO, Jack London, and its lead attorney, William Koegel, during "months of calls, emails and letters" in what Greenwald calls a campaign to "intimidate, threaten and suppress" the story presented in the film.

"The threatening letters started early, trying to get us to back off," Greenwald told me. "We refused, and went back at them with a very strong letter saying, 'no, you're war profiteers and we won't be silenced.' Like any bully, they backed down when confronted. No lawsuit was filed-- they're a paper tiger."

Posted by: Anonymous | November 22, 2006 10:51 AM | Report abuse

We are conducting a survey on amnesty for illegal immigrants in the UK and the USA for the next 6 months at http://www.skillipedia.com . We want to hear opinions from normal people - not political parties or think tanks.

Your opinions or feedback are much appreciated

Posted by: skills | November 22, 2006 10:42 AM | Report abuse

'As a last little gift to America, Senator George Allen, who was narrowly defeated by James Webb this month, has introduced what may be his final piece of legislation: a bill that would allow the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks. The bill has passed to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where we hope it will die the miserable death it deserves.

Senator Allen's bill is, of course, being cheered by the gun lobby, which sees it not as an assault on public safety but as a way of nationalizing the armed paranoia that the National Rifle Association and its cohorts stand for.

To zealots who believe that the Second Amendment trumps all others, the parks are merely another badland, like schools and church parking lots, that could be cleaned up if the carrying of private weapons were allowed. The concealed-weapon advocates are doing an excellent job of sounding terrified by "lonely wilderness trails." But make no mistake. Senator Allen's bill would make no one safer. It can only endanger the public.

--It's amazing what paranoid cowards and bedwetters rightwingers are...

Posted by: Anonymous | November 22, 2006 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: guiliani in drag | November 22, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Just a little note about Obama:

Illinois, like many states in the industrial heartland, is a combination of a relatively liberal and racially diverse city (Chicago, in the case of Illinois), and more conservative and less racially diverse rural areas (sometimes known as "downstate" in Illinois).

Like the late Paul Simon (who supported Obama's campaign), Obama has proven to be a popular political figure in "downstate" Illinois (this was true both in his primary campaign and his general election campaign, and appears to continue to be true today). What I believe this shows is that Obama's racial background is not as much a barrier to his national political success as some people suggest. In other words, I think downstate Illinois is a decent proxy for much of the South and West, and I think Obama's ability to appeal to voters in downstate Illinois suggests that he will be able to appeal to voters in the South and West as well.

Incidentally, my own sense is that Obama really does strike most people as being "beyond" the race dynamics of the recent past. Part of that is just his very unusual background, but I think part of it is a conscious choice of message on his part. In any event, I think people need to be careful about assuming how other people will respond to Obama as a black candidate for President, because I don't think he strikes most people as an "ordinary" or "typical" black politician.

Posted by: DTM | November 22, 2006 10:32 AM | Report abuse

While Mayor Giuliani has taken another small step toward running for president, he's getting some unsolicited help in the key early primary states, Iowa and New Hampshire.

The former New York mayor filed a statement of organization for a presidential exploratory committee with the Federal Election Commission, a top aide confirmed yesterday. Earlier this month he formed a similar committee with the New York Department of State with an eye toward "testing the waters" for a White House bid.

Posted by: Where's my party pumps? | November 22, 2006 10:31 AM | Report abuse

The Do-Nothing Congress Continues to -- Do Nothing:

'Republicans vacating the Capitol are dumping a big spring cleaning job on Democrats moving in. GOP leaders have opted to leave behind almost a half-trillion-dollar clutter of unfinished spending bills,

There's also no guarantee that Republicans will pass a multibillion-dollar measure to prevent a cut in fees to doctors treating Medicare patients.

Some Republicans also look forward to using unfinished budget work to gum up an early Democratic agenda that includes raising the minimum wage, negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries, cutting interest rates on college loans and repealing some tax breaks for oil companies.'

God forbid Dems should cut interest rates on college loans and lower drug prices and repeal tax breaks on the profitable corporations in the world! If you didn't know it already, just goes to show you how much Republicans loathe and despise the middle class...

Posted by: drindl | November 22, 2006 9:32 AM | Report abuse

I will add another reason for Clinton/Warner 08. Much has been said about Senator Obama and the role he could play in 08. I think he could do a great job at the UN, although I would give some more thought to this for he could also do a great job at State. That would mean Richardson and Obama would fill the positions on the UN and Sec. of State. Stating these choices before the election, IMO, would be a great campaign issue in and by its self. Dr. Dean would also be great for HHS. as I think I've stated before. Gov. Napalatino would be a good choice for Homeland Security since she has been fighting hard for the Federal Goverment to protect our borders and not make the States the primary force in this matter. As you can see by my outline the dems could be a powerful force in 08 with Clinton/Warner leading the way.

Posted by: lylepink | November 22, 2006 9:30 AM | Report abuse

hey max --- good to see you on this blog. you have a very thorough grounding on issues. you shouldn't bother with KOZ though, he'll he drinking the koolaid long after eveyrone else has left the party. ideology trumps facts every time.

lsitening to him talk about military strategy is a hoot, though -- a guy who's seen a battlefield only on TV. we have so many armchair generals in this 'war' -- maybe if they would have all actually volunteered to fight it we might have had enough troops to win while there was still a chance...

Posted by: Anonymous | November 22, 2006 9:08 AM | Report abuse

wow, you see a lot of hatred in the comments on this blog. I think that people need to realise that they aren't actually representative of hte broader population. Just something to think about when they bag the experts and bag the candidates.

I certainly have a lot of respect for Chris, I don't always agree wiht everything he says but I definitely have a lot of respect for what he does say.

Posted by: thomas | November 22, 2006 5:09 AM | Report abuse

These last few posts are doing my heart good in that a few more of you are speaking out in support of Hillary. Since being in the Senate the solid upstate repugs have gotten to know and like her for her skill and hard work for the folks in the state. The thought of a dem to get the support of the folks in that area is pretty well something none one would have even thought would be in the realm of possibility much less she is ranked over any of the expected field at this point in time.

Posted by: lylepink | November 22, 2006 5:01 AM | Report abuse

We could only be so lucky as to have Hillary Clinton as the first women Presidential nomination she is strong ,smart, and very informed of middle class family problems!

Posted by: Florida Girl | November 22, 2006 2:43 AM | Report abuse

Get off your------tts and get behind Hillary 2008 I think that she is the only hope we have in the democratic party and she will be the best President we have ever had !Americas Margret Thatcher....

Posted by: Georgia Peach ! | November 22, 2006 2:39 AM | Report abuse

Ok I am so tired of every one saying Hillarys is not a viable canidate in 2008.I think she is the best option for the democrats ,I live in South Carolina and believe that her and Wes clark are our best options in 2008 so stop complaining about Hillary get behind her and prey that Wes clark is her Vp nomination!!!!

Posted by: Greenvillescguy | November 22, 2006 2:35 AM | Report abuse

One factor for Southern Democrats is that as a Democrat in a red state they are use to defending themselves. It is not hard being liberal in Boston or Minnesota, but try it North Carolina. I like Edwards because he is willing to talk about class issues. As for the lie that Democrats are anti-captialist look at Gore who is a successful businessman.

Posted by: Franco | November 22, 2006 2:29 AM | Report abuse

"Yes, by definition. Kerry and Dean are fairly centrist, yet Repubs do an excellent job of branding any Democratic non-Southerners as "liberals," even when they're not."

I don't see this as much of a justification to go on nominating Southern Dems; it's not as though Republicans will be any more forgiving of a candidate from the South -- who's ever inspired more accusations and vitriol than Clinton? He just happens to be an extraordinary, and particularly resilient, politician; I know, I know, LBJ and Carter too -- but I'm highly suspicious that this is a pattern that'll really bear scrutiny in the long run. Gore was a Southener. Edwards ran as veep but didn't make his ticket any competitive in NC. It's funny -- Richard Russell wanted LBJ to become President in order to bring the South back into the union, blah blah blah (and also, ironically, because he thought segregation would be safe under President Johnson). Now we're wondering if a non-Southern Democrat can become President.

I think so long as we stick to the 'only a Southern Dem can win' storyline, we'll be helping to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. To a lesser extent, that will also be the case with getting a black or woman President in office -- the longer we tell ourselves one will never get elected, the longer it will take for one to be nominated. (Given, you could make a good argument that it would be stupid to knowingly nominate a candidate with so many question marks hanging about their prospects out of defiance. I can't imagine anything much more depressing, though, than deciding to vote against Obama in a primary from the conviction that a black candidate couldn't win a general election).

"(lot of left-wing senators in the midwest, no?)
"Not really."

Some reliable (I'm divining) progressive voters in the 110th Congress: Durbin, Obama, Levin, Stabenow, Klobuchar (whose state gave us Humphrey and Wellstone), Tester, Brown, Kohl, Feingold. Maybe McCaskill. I don't know that much about the politics of Dorgan, Conrad, Tim Johnson, or Tom Harkin, but I assume that Harkin at least belongs on that list as well. Bayh's alright. Nelson, given, doesn't belong there. Still, out of 24 Midwestern senators, between 9 and 11 are good progressives, and 16 are Democrats. Even Kansas is purpling (I know that has been said a lot and is virtually a cliche at this point). Perhaps I'm being naive imagining that a black candidate has a shot at the presidency but, to play the non-cynic, I can imagine a straight Midwestern ticket of Obama-Sebelius putting every Midwestern state other than Indiana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas into play.

Posted by: Max | November 22, 2006 12:48 AM | Report abuse

Dr. Don Key. You Should read my prior comments about Hillary and you will find not only will a woman be elected POTUS but in my humble opinion that woman will for sure be Hillary should she choose to run. I have no knowledge if she will run in 08 or not but if she does you can bank on the best run campagn possible in that she has the best on her side. I dont think many doubt Bubba is the best and as for the black and hispanic voters they will turn out in record numbers with well over 80% in her favor. Most folks are not taking the population of these two groups in the south where they have a majority in the larger cities. These are more reasons added to the ones I've stated in prior comments that the regular readers will hopefully remember. Again Clinton/Warner 08 is the winner.

Posted by: lylepink | November 22, 2006 12:30 AM | Report abuse

It is always pointed out, when a Senator or former Senator expresses interest in running for president, how few Senators have managed to win the presidency, despite the huge number who have run and large number who have been nominated. And there are obvious reasons why having a senatorial voting record and senatorial schedule makes it hard to be elected president.

So to get a better sense, I consulted Wikipedia, which has a constantly updated list of who has expressed interest, formed a committee or filed as a candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008 (note that this list does not include Gore, Condi, or others who have not expressed an interest in running, and that I had no part in compiling the list)

Here, by party, are the titles of the candidates so far:

Title Democrats Republicans
Senator 6 5
Former Senator 3 0
Governor 2 4
Representative 0 1
Former Rep. 0 1
Former Mayor 0 1
General (Ret.) 1 0
Private Sector 0 2

Total 12 14

So, 9 of the 12 Democrats listed are Senators or former Senators, while only 5 of the 14 Republicans are. To be fair, Representatives running for President have faired even worse than Senators.
So 9 of 12 Democrats and 7 of 14 Repubs are coming from congress.

But to be even more fair, I don't know when the last time (if ever) a business leader with no high level government credentials, or a former mayor with no state or national experience was elected.
So 9 of 12 Democrates and 10 of 14 Republicans are coming from backgrounds which (history would tend to suggest) hurt their chances.

And, of course, Eisenhower is the last retired General to make a successful run. Which may or may not be a bad sign for Clark.

So the Dems have 2 governors on the list and the Repubs have 4, and none of them are front runners.

Just something to consider.

Posted by: Cali49 | November 22, 2006 12:12 AM | Report abuse

response to: Posted by: | November 21, 2006 08:23 PM

"Can I ask why you say this? Do you think their politics are perceived to be too left-wing"
Yes, by definition. Kerry and Dean are fairly centrist, yet Repubs do an excellent job of branding any Democratic non-Southerners as "liberals," even when they're not.

"(lot of left-wing senators in the midwest, no?)"
Not really.

"or is it simply the issue of a woman or a black on the ticket?"
Yes. Polls don't always transfer into votes. Sad to say, a lot of people in America would never vote for any woman or any minority. Look what they did to Ford in Tenn. He ran an excellent campaign in the South, yet essentially lost due to a hard-hitting populist ad that ran for about a week. America will probably have a woman president, and then a minority president. But it won't be in '08.

"Don't you think that Obama would put into play purple states like Ohio and Arkansas with large black populations?"
Perhaps, but then you have to factor in the whites who -woudln't- vote for a minority. That includes Repubs, Dems, and Independents.

"Not to mention that senators (Johnson and Nixon) HAVE won the presidency since JFK, but only after being out of office."
True.

"Can you imagine an Obama-McCain debate?
I can't, and I'm not even sure Obama would win it, but I'd sure like to see something that crazy."
You're right. That would be a classic.

I'd probably support Obama after he served at least 1 full term as Senator. But in '08, McCain will get the nomination, in all probability. At this juncture, Obama wouldn't neutralize his strong points very well. Consider that McCain is a centrist on many issues, and is a veteran. Dems should counter with a general and/or a Southern/Midwestern Moderate, preferably outside Congress


Posted by: Dr. Don Key | November 21, 2006 11:39 PM | Report abuse

response to: Posted by: | November 21, 2006 08:23 PM

"Can I ask why you say this? Do you think their politics are perceived to be too left-wing"
Yes, by definition. Kerry and Dean are fairly centrist, yet Repubs do an excellent job of branding any Democratic non-Southerners as "liberals," even when they're not.

"(lot of left-wing senators in the midwest, no?)"
Not really.

"or is it simply the issue of a woman or a black on the ticket?"
Yes. Polls don't always transfer into votes. Sad to say, a lot of people in America would never vote for any woman or any minority. Look what they did to Ford in Tenn. He ran an excellent campaign in the South, yet essentially lost due to a hard-hitting populist ad that ran for about a week. America will probably have a woman president, and then a minority president. But it won't be in '08.

"Don't you think that Obama would put into play purple states like Ohio and Arkansas with large black populations?"
Perhaps, but then you have to factor in the whites who -woudln't- vote for a minority. That includes Repubs, Dems, and Independents.

"Not to mention that senators (Johnson and Nixon) HAVE won the presidency since JFK, but only after being out of office."
True.

"Can you imagine an Obama-McCain debate?
I can't, and I'm not even sure Obama would win it, but I'd sure like to see something that crazy."
You're right. That would be a classic.

I'd probably support Obama after he served at least 1 full term as Senator. But in '08, McCain will get the nomination, in all probability. At this juncture, Obama wouldn't neutralize his strong points very well. Consider that McCain is a centrist on many issues, and is a veteran. Dems should counter with a general and/or a Southern/Midwestern Moderate, preferably outside Congress


Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Well I guess we are going to give the Reps. another Presidency in 08. Don't take this the wrong way I am not sexist or racist, but I know the people of the U.S.A. are not going to vote in a black man or a woman! I do like both of these choices, but the fact is it is a losing ticket. The issues will get clouded by the agendas that both will be accused of having, in truth or not.This ticket is way to liberal for a country that is leaning in the other direction, in my opinion.

Posted by: troy | November 21, 2006 10:55 PM | Report abuse

King,

Regarding an earlier comment, you may not have noticed, but OH is no longer a red state, and should not be regarded as so going into 08. As a former Ohioan and someone who is still in an Ohio media market, I watched the change from red to blue happen this cycle. With Brown as Senator, Strickland as Governor, a potential big contender for Sen. Voinovich, and the conviction of Tom Noe (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000097.html) this week, don't count on OH being the red state that it was in 04.

Posted by: GoBlue girl | November 21, 2006 10:36 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty sweet that the dems are having all these issues on deciding who the nominee should be. It was pretty sweet, too, to see Hoyer defeat Murtha and hand Pelosi the big defeat. McCain/Pawlentry in 08'!

Posted by: reason | November 21, 2006 10:28 PM | Report abuse

I've got to comment on KoZ saying:

"In war, you must kill all the enemy before they lose hope."

We don't even know who the enemy is here. We have this vague, nebulous enemy we refer to as "terrorists", but we really don't know who they are. All the wars your refer to had distict combatants. That doesn't exist here. All the killing that we do accomplishes nothing but increasing the threat. Fighting terrorism with mass invasion only throws gasoline on the fire. If you need any proof, just look at the exponential increase in terrorist attacks worldwide. And don't think for a minute that resting on the laurels of "no attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11" is good enough. We dragged the entire western world into this by invading Iraq.

Posted by: JCH | November 21, 2006 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Experience is surely an important credential for POTUS candidate, thats why Governors are so popular. While Obama is a great crowd-mover, and has said some good things, does he have the necessary experience? What will he do when the chips are down, and tough decisions are needed? Does he have the spine to cope with vicious, relentless, and sometimes personal, attacks from the opposition?

The untested is a risk, maybe thats why his "do not want" numbers are so much higher than Hillary's at this stage. He still has time to persuade the doubters though...

Regarding Hillary, for such a so-called "polarising" figure, she has amazingly low "do not want" numbers. Quite impressive, at this early stage...

Posted by: JayPe | November 21, 2006 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will run and win in 2008. i will make sure of that.

Posted by: bill clinton | November 21, 2006 8:29 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton and Obama would do poorly in Midwestern/Southern states, among Repubs and old-school Dems alike."

Can I ask why you say this? Do you think their politics are perceived to be too left-wing (lot of left-wing senators in the midwest, no?), or is it simply the issue of a woman or a black on the ticket? I'd guess the latter. Don't you think that Obama would put into play purple states like Ohio and Arkansas with large black populations? I think it's at least a possibility. I don't know if a black guy has any shot of being elected President, but for now I think I'm with Barack.

"Forget about it. Senators aren't supposed to win the presidency, but Edwards is young, centrist, and a Southerner."

Not to mention that senators (Johnson and Nixon) HAVE won the presidency since JFK, but only after being out of office.

"Dems need to put someone on the ticket like Clinton--no, not Hillary. Bill Clinton played drums when he visited Africa and played the sax on TV. You should have a pulse if you're running for prez."

So why not Obama? I think the race thing is the only potential reason to consider him unelectable -- I think the "inexperience" meme is a non-starter with the American electorate; if people were so enthused about experience, Gore would be President right now. Can you imagine an Obama-McCain debate? I can't, and I'm not even sure Obama would win it, but I'd sure like to see something that crazy.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 8:23 PM | Report abuse

"claiming a landlside victory in NJ, RI and MD is not saying much."

Perhaps not, but blue states do elect red senators and vice versa; this year, Keane, Chafee and Steele were supposed to be competitive. They turned out not to be.

"what about Maine?"

Oh, come on, man. What about Florida, Nebraska, and North friggin' Dakota? Senators become entrenched or have the luck to wind up with lousy opponents. It doesn't disprove the existence of electoral waves (though it is, admittedly, one way to measure their heights, and this one wasn't titanic).


"the Dems from VA, PA and MT are not what I would consider wildly radical lefties and in most states would be Rs."

I never claimed they were wildly radical lefties, only that none of them are anything near Republicans (even Webb and Casey will probably have more liberal voting records than did Chafee (with the obvious exception of the abortion issue in the case of Casey); I don't take seriously any arguments that Tester's less than a progressive, given all the 'stop this lunatic' rhetoric that was coming out of the right-wing blogosphere prior to the election). I'm of a mind with Glenn Greenwald that it's disingenuous to pretend that today's right/left divisions exist along the same lines they did in the '90's. It's no longer about affirmative action, abortion, gun control, or even gay marriage. It's about habeus corpus, torture, warantless eavesdropping, the Patriot act, the Iraq war. I wish that the most important things we had to argue about were social issues, but they're decidedly secondary in my mind. And when it comes to rooting for senators, I'd gladly swap a redstater like Webb who'll stick up for the constitution and maybe vote against affirmative action or gay marriage, for an otherwise-blue pro-war and anti-oversight guy like Lieberman. (This is the kind of anti-Lieberman argument that the MSM refused to report on during the past election).

"Advocating nationalized health care indicates you have no sense of finance. Is also provides further evidence that Dems can't run an economy, except into the ground."

We'll never stop talking past each other regarding healthcare and the Iraq war, I suspect.

"why is Kerry on the outs - he was your main man a short two years ago?"

It's not because he's "too liberal." I myself admire Kerry a lot and would be willing to think about supporting him in '08 if he were viable. But his clutzy (sp?) joke has turned him into a pariah, a figure who people don't want to be seen with -- and I do think he's out of the presidential running entirely (and unfortunately). But no, Schumer didn't wake up one day and think "Y'know, Kerry's too damn liberal. Can't let him make appearances with us anymore." Harry Reid's given top committee assignments to Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and Ben Cardin, for God's sake. Kennedy and Levin and Biden will be public faces of the party in the Senate. Kerry's circumstances are personal, not based on rejected ideology.

"Leiberman was your no 2 four years before that. what changed?"

When people make this argument they wilfully overlook the obvious fact that the people choose their presidential candidate, but not their vice presidential. Gore's choice of Lieberman was a deeply regrettable attempt to distance himself from Clinton. So far as I know, JL has never been particularly popular with the base of the party -- thus his '04 primary performance, after which he began undermining the Democratic Senate leadership, and attempts at consensus on an Iraq policy, as publicly as he could.

"anti-war plank not selling is supported by Red ned losing in CN, no less, and by Murtha losing by a wide margin."

I've responded to both these arguments. Lieberman blurred the lines between himself and Lamont and tried to make himself out as an anti-war candidate as well. The Murtha issue isn't worth rehashing, but it wasn't a rejection of the anti-war plank. What about Webb winning in Virginia? Have you seen this ad? --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YVDOO61f7Q

"all the rhetoric about immediate surrender is drying up fast as the Dems realize there is no support for losing a war."

Whatever. I follow things pretty closely and I've seen absolutely no support for this claim and its suppositions in reality.

And then we're back to our fundamental disagreements about how to approach national security.

Posted by: Max | November 21, 2006 8:12 PM | Report abuse

The good news is that George W. Bush can't run again, and radical rightwing Republicans aren't running Congress anymore. Hallef'nlujah!

Posted by: Dr. Don Key | November 21, 2006 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Let's talk about political reality. Kerry can win when hell freezes over. From delayed Swiftboat response to the botched joke to being caught on film sailing solo to the Lurch factor--it's over. Clinton and Obama would do poorly in Midwestern/Southern states, among Repubs and old-school Dems alike. Forget about it. Senators aren't supposed to win the presidency, but Edwards is young, centrist, and a Southerner. Also, consideringly that you need something like $60M before primaries, he probably has enough star power/connections to raise that. In theory, Biden would probably make a good president, but he's boring. Gore and Kerry are also too serious. Dems need to put someone on the ticket like Clinton--no, not Hillary. Bill Clinton played drums when he visited Africa and played the sax on TV. You should have a pulse if you're running for prez.

Posted by: Dr. Don Key | November 21, 2006 8:03 PM | Report abuse

When they ask scientists about 'An Inconvenient Truth', the overwhelming almost unanimous response is that is it entirely factual. Obviously this Administrations stance of "keep saying it ain't so and some people will believe us" has obviously convinced at least one person...

You mention that "this ignores the cost or ability to do anything about it" - unfortunately this is important to todays generation. It is far more important to be rich now, than to still have a functioning earth later. Human short-termism is a disgrace. No politician has the guts to do anything about it. Perhaps thats why Gore left politics...

Posted by: JayPe | November 21, 2006 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I didn't know we surveyed losers for advice on Iraq. I guess if you want to lose a war, there would be no better place to visit then the HQ of Sore-Loserman. I also was unaware that modern science resorts to polling politicians for establishing facts. I, in my naive state, would unknowingly query climate scientists and weather-model builders to determine if there is any science behind the idea that there is a trend in temperature and that it is man-made. but if you did this, you would not be able to club other naive people with the non-facts you employ. and this ignores the cost or ability to do anything about it even if it were a fact.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 7:11 PM | Report abuse

KoZ says:
"What makes you think Gore was right on climate change."

The rest of the world acknowledges that climate change is a real issue. McCain acknowledges that it is an issue. Only the current President and the chairman of Mobil refuse to acknowledge there is a real problem. Whether the world does anything is another matter, but at least Gore effectively promoted the issue as important long before many others.

And as far as the "inventing the internet" jibe, we all know thats a horrible misquote. He received a 'Webby' acknowledging his work promoting it as a politician. Again, he was the first politician to see its importance and promote it effectively.

I see you failed to even come up with a snarky one liner on his opposition to Iraq. His stance on that issue is obviously beyond dispute...

Posted by: JayPe | November 21, 2006 7:05 PM | Report abuse

What makes you think Gore was right on climate change. this is not established science, only rabid enviromentalism. I would have thought he could have retired on his profits from inventing the Internet by now. there are few who could stand his lecturing for 4 years. He turned from a solid Senator into a lefty Pres candidate. then he lost. what happened?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 6:55 PM | Report abuse

RL says:
"Dems won in 06 because they weren't Republicans. The Dems need a candidate who will motivate their base."

Webb, Tester, Sestak, etc were voted in because they received the resounding support of Independents. The base was motivated by the words "President George Bush".

I take your point though. Its a tricky line, but a presidential candidate must successfully motivate their base AND appeal to independents. Wesley Clark has real potential. And I so hope you're right about Gore. He's been right on so many issues in recent times (Iraq, climate change, technology), he'd make a great POTUS.

Posted by: JayPe | November 21, 2006 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Why not Dean - ummmmm because he's nutty??

Meuphys _ I am not sure what you are referring to. a civil society does not require a federal government to oversee every aspect. There is state and local government which is much closer to the people. If you are talking about health care, then I would advocate market solutions since the price of this beast is the problem and the market is best at finding proper prices.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Max: Just heard Mean Jean Won. Another thought of mine is that Gore would be great at EPA if Hillary can forgive him for what he did to Bubba. Here I am sitting up a cabinet for Hillary and she hasn't been sworn in yet, wishful thinking on my part, but such a very good thing to wish for.

Posted by: lylepink | November 21, 2006 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary would be a disater. So would Kerry. Gore's been in the wilderness long enough he may be able to reinvent himself again. Why isn't Howard Dean being talked up? He led the party to a resounding victory in 06. And all this conventional wisdom about a Dem needs to be from a red state, moderate, yada yada, is just cr.p. Dems won in 06 because they weren't Republicans. The Dems need a candidate who will motivate their base. If we want a Republican, there's already one on the ballot, thank you very much.

Posted by: RL | November 21, 2006 6:41 PM | Report abuse

In an ideal world, Barack Obama would have more senatorial experience under his belt. However, we do not live in an ideal world, and I am impressed enough with his smarts and willlingness to do the work needed to get a clear understanding of the issues that i am willing to say, if he runs he's the guy. He comes across as someone with leadership and communication skills like Bill had, which are woefully lacking in the Bush administration.
also, in response to Zouk's last post, I would be curious as to what if any role he sees the federal government as playing, and if the answer is "none," how he would propose to establish a civil society absent any oversight. I know, the "o" word...

Posted by: meuphys | November 21, 2006 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the earlier comments about Wes Clark being the dark horse. The only reason he doesnt score high on these polls is because he doesnt have the name recognition of the other candidates. People from both sides of the aisle seem to like him once they get to know him. I think he would be a strong candidate and has gained tremendouse political experience over the past two years.

Posted by: Luke | November 21, 2006 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Although this poll has Hillary with a comfortable lead, I've seen plenty of others that have Obama creeping towards the Dem maven. It's still way too early to really take a serious look at any polls. Remember '04? Nobody saw Dean coming.

Anbody see this Nancy Pelosi Q&A guest blog?
http://polibuzz.blogspot.com/2006/11/political-buzz-exclusive-5-questions.html
She's still slamming the Iraq war.

Posted by: matthew | November 21, 2006 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Max, I would also like my car insurance to pick up every repair at no cost to me and have my employer or the government pay for it. If I have to, I will pay a $5 co-pay. and poor people should not be driving around in cars that need repair. the government should do something about it. think of all the babies riding around in uninsured cars.

See any problems with this argument? I didn't think you would.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Its a shame so much of electioneering is about "electability". Surely people should back the person who best articulates their beliefs? This was a major mistake for the Dems in 2004 (went for the electable Kerry, not Edwards who was perceived as a risk, ditto Dean) - and look where that got them!

If you have to go for electability, then the following rules for Dems apply:
- moderate views
- southern/Red state
- Governor, or other (General ok, Senator not!)
- great on the stump
- don't worry so much about money/name recognition (eg. Mondale and Kerry)
In addition, you want your POTUS candidate to articulate a positive vision of hope, while your VP candidate spends all their time bashing the opponent and defending the POTUS candidate (much like Cheney, who is detestable but unfortunately effective as far as winning is concerned).

Therefore, people like Kerry & Hillary should be discounted immediately, while Edwards needs to prove he can win actually red states (I hope he takes on Dole in 2008).

Bayh, Richardson, Vilsack and Clark all have a year to demonstrate they're good on the stump, articulating a positive vision.

If the VP is going to be an attack dog, that eliminates Obama and Warner. But the above four are all ok.

Posted by: JayPe | November 21, 2006 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Max, you must be new to this site. Didn't you get the rules that require all Libs to be irrational, insulting and immoderate. but a worthy adversary is welcome for a change. In like fashion, taken point by point:
claiming a landlside victory in NJ, RI and MD is not saying much. what about Maine? the Dems from VA, PA and MT are not what I would consider wildly radical lefties and in most states would be Rs.

Advocating nationalized health care indicates you have no sense of finance. Is also provides further evidence that Dems can't run an economy, except into the ground.

why is Kerry on the outs - he was your main man a short two years ago? Leiberman was your no 2 four years before that. what changed?

anti-war plank not selling is supported by Red ned losing in CN, no less, and by Murtha losing by a wide margin. all the rhetoric about immediate surrender is drying up fast as the Dems realize there is no support for losing a war. All this talk about waiting for the Baker proposal is just a smokescreen for not deciding. Who elected Baker? why would we want to revert back to the 70s talk, talk mentality that got us into this mess. why would we ignore bad guys as long as they don't bother us? this strategy has been refuted convincingly by the 9/11 attack. Handing over our policy to these career negotiaters is a big mistake. what will Iran and Syria offer us for their cooperation? the same thing N Korea did - lies and appeasement for continued pursuit of improper behavior.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"National health care IS a non-starter! This is not a socialist country Max and the Dems need to seriously pick a moderate centrist candidate to have any kind of chance in '08 up against McCain. There's a lot of things to spend money on rather than hugely bloated govt. health care. We need a military, despite what liberals think, and that cost a lot even at peacetime, but we're at war right now!!"

What powerful rhetoric. Sorry, this is nothing but assertion. "This is not a socialist country" -- and therefore to hell with helping citizens live healthy lives even if they aren't rich. "Dems need to seriously pick of up a moderate centrist candidate to have any kind of chance in '08 up against McCain" -- because you say so, nevermind that it's hard to imagine a less formidable candidate than a high-voiced, soft-spoken, uncharismatic 70-year-old, who's unpopular with his party's base and has adopted the world's least popular stance regarding the sure-to-be-unresolved central national issue, the Iraq war. Finally, "We need a military, despite what liberals think" -- ah, what a witty little throwaway clause. I think we need to save the world from the dire threat of global warming, despite what complacent, oil industry-loving Republicans think. Can I compete in the "drive-by cheap shot" sweepstakes?

Posted by: Max | November 21, 2006 5:59 PM | Report abuse

King, I'm going to ignore what I view as your baseless optimism regarding Iraq, because I think the profound grimness of the country's ceaseless violence outweighs it hugely. I'd like to point out that what you wrote earlier about no one foreeing civil war in which terrorists would kill civilians isn't true. The ones who didn't foresee it were the national leaders who began the war without knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. I think your arguments are increasingly driven strictly by ideology (and I have to run), so I'm not going to respond in depth.

Posted by: Max | November 21, 2006 5:51 PM | Report abuse

National health care IS a non-starter! This is not a socialist country Max and the Dems need to seriously pick a moderate centrist candidate to have any kind of chance in '08 up against McCain. There's a lot of things to spend money on rather than hugely bloated govt. health care. We need a military, despite what liberals think, and that cost a lot even at peacetime, but we're at war right now!!

Posted by: DRJ | November 21, 2006 5:51 PM | Report abuse

You have ignored what I advanced as improvements. Schools, refugees, economics, army and police levels, interest by the population in ridding themselves of the minority of violent foreigners. Our interests are not solely based on the number of dead, it is the overall effect those dead get by the price they pay. the benefit is that civilians in NY aren't dead. that we don't get blown up in supermarkets in LA.

Out intelligence in this part of the world is very weak, we din't know the USSR was failing until it did. we do have some intercepted traffic that indicates things are not going well for the terrorists (except for this last election).

In war, you must kill all the enemy before they lose hope. If they see little victories along the way, they fight on. the confederates only gave up when their cities were burned, the Yankess were behind them, the home folks were starving, etc. the Germans had their entire country obliterated and thewy still fought on. the Japs would have been formidable. but they never killed their own people. this nis abhorant to westerners and just doesn't make any sense. we will need to figure this out. We have to stop pussy-footing around to win wars, after the tanks go home. Kill the enemy. Call me col Kurtz.

I would consider stepping out of the way and letting them all kill each other until only a few zealots remain. but the impression that would give to this culture is that the US is not your friend and can't be counted on in a pinch. We are still trying to shed that image from the Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 days. saving US soldiers is a good thing, but it is not the goal of this effort.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"You can deny the "Dem went moderate to win" karma but explain how Murtha lost by such a stomping."

He didn't have the chits from years serving in the leadership that Hoyers had, and there was rightful concern about immediately putting in a leadership position a politician who many believe to be corrupt.

"It is because the anti-war plank is not selling. (see red Ned)"

This is all you've got to argue this point with, King. In response to it I say: See Joe Lieberman turning his election message from "We probably won't change each other's minds about Iraq" (i.e. admitting that his position was unpopular) into "No one wants to end this war more than I do" (a rhetorical sleight of hand).

"It is because the ultra-libs are dying off. (won't anyone talk to Kerry?)"

Kerry's not on the outs in the party because of his policies or ideology, and you know it.

"the country wants a return to moderate-conservative policies which were lost under the compassionate conservative big spenders."

These guys are who the word "conservative" refers to today. Sorry they betrayed your own ideological leanings, but in doing so they also took from you your ideological label.

"the end to the war by immediate retreat is already gone."

Whoever talked about doing this? ("Red Ned" didn't, and I'll go searching for the articles in which he talks about his more moderate troop reduction stance if you force me to). It was by discrediting the notion that they wanted to "cut and run" that Democrats were able to make a mockery of the phrase.

"the tax increases are going fast."

Stop living in "LBJ is President" world. Even a balls-out liberal like Spitzer ran on a platform of lower taxes.

"National health care is a non-starter."

Perhaps in this Congress with this President. It's pretty damn important, though.

"the election victories were mostly razor thin except in OH, which was predicted to go Dem but remained R for the most part because they stuck to their conservative creed. Like Chabot, Tiberi, etc. Explain."

The statewide offices in Ohio were swept by Democrats. Landslide Senate races in PA, MN, MD, NJ, RI. The razor thin margins you refer to were in conservative states like MT, VA, and MO, where Dems oughtn't to have been competitive. No Senate Democrat came close to losing his or her seat.

Posted by: Max | November 21, 2006 5:40 PM | Report abuse

'the split in the Dem party between Pelosi pacifists and ultra-libs who will wreck the economy and surrender our values and wars'

this hilarious rhetoric is the stuff of cartoons. are you about 10 years old? could you actually believe this loony nonsense? your party doesn't have any 'values' to surrender, do they? and who has racked up the biggest national debt inhistory, hmm? and who has just managed to irretreivably lose a war?

maybe if you all had any ideas you might win an election...

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 5:39 PM | Report abuse

King,

Thanks for your very courteous response. You name a bunch of flubs and might-have-been flubs in the fighting of the war -- when Democrats do the same, aren't they accused of Monday morning quarterbacking? I don't quite understand what you're getting at in the second half of your first paragraph -- that there's good news in Iraq that goes unreported? But even if this is true, what good will be done by its being announced more loudly in the States. Isn't the level of violence in the country a more pressing issue than the fact that schools are doing well? I haven't seen the figure you cite, that 80% of refugees are returning. I have read that, proportional to America's population, the Iraqi population has undergone the equivalent of 9/11 every three days since the war began.

"Retreating to Afganistan does nothing to solve any problems," you write. Well, Afghanistan's a big problem in itself; production of opium, resurgence of the Taliban, etc. "Just what do you think leaving will accomplish?" you ask. I believe it will result in a smaller net loss of American lives than staying will.

"I believe that showing any sign of weakness will encourage the enemy to continue their advance with ever more determination," you say. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, honestly -- you don't think they're determined already? They're thinking "Gee, these Americans are tougher than we thought -- how 'bout calling it a day?" right now, and will finally give up in a year or five years -- unless we betray our weakness? (Our weakness being that we don't like troops to be lost to a very obscure cause). This strikes me as Vietnam logic -- the Domino effect replaced by the "terrorist pursuit" effect. Doesn't it just boil down to the ASSUMPTION that we're calling the terrorists on their bluff?

Finally you say, "It is not clear to me what the US ground forces can do but It is clear to me what will happen if they turn tail." This is the issue -- neither you nor I know what the hell to do with the troops. It is not "losing our will," however, to suggest that, given those circumstances, we think about removing them rather than prolonging the current situation indefinitely. It's an attempt to be practical and try to end this situation by minimizing the damage it does to America and its military. The trouble with staying is that no one actually views circumstances, and our fighting situation, improving.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone predict a red state that will flip over to Hillary's column? I don't see OH or FL going her way. I can consider Blue states that will go for McCain or Rudy. doesn't look good for you Dems in 2008. Of course coming up with a policy, any policy, would help.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 5:29 PM | Report abuse

A little thing came to me from a very good source this past weekend in that Gen. Clark would be Defense Sec. Gov Richardson at State or U.N. Edwards AG. These were also my picks and another thing in her, Hillary, favor. more and more I am conviced she will win and I do have hope she will run.

Posted by: lylepink | November 21, 2006 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Hard to believe anyone still wants to see Gore or Kerry on the ticket. HRC...bring it on!! What more could a red-stater want for Christmas?!

Posted by: DRJ | November 21, 2006 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Star, expecting a gracious balk from hillary is just asking too much. the clintons do not suffer from that handicap. do not count her out if McCain is her opponent. He is as big a liability as she is. More big-government solutions. you don't understand the seething contempt for him that exists in the doners and grass roots. we don't want a candidate that sacrifices the first amendment in the form of campaign finance reform and government oversight of free speech. this was the most serious misstep in the last 20 years. Let us shout our views from the rooftop, let the voters sort it out. Why am I to be muzzled on certain days about my political views? simple - protect the incumbant, as if this has been a problem.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 5:23 PM | Report abuse

You can deny the "Dem went moderate to win" karma but explain how Murtha lost by such a stomping. It is because the anti-war plank is not selling. (see red Ned) It is because the corruption as usual concept is tired. (see furor over Hastings) It is because the ultra-libs are dying off. (won't anyone talk to Kerry?) the country wants a return to moderate-conservative policies which were lost under the compassionate conservative big spenders. Watch over the next few months as more and more of the Dem campaign promises are abandoned. Its called bait and switch. the end to the war by immediate retreat is already gone. the tax increases are going fast. National health care is a non-starter. the election victories were mostly razor thin except in OH, which was predicted to go Dem but remained R for the most part because they stuck to their conservative creed. Like Chabot, Tiberi, etc. Explain.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Hillary - ugh. What a fantastical mistake her nomination would be. It would sink the Dems for a long long time.

Richardson or Clark are the only two who have what it takes. No Hillary - not even as VP - I am all for a woman POTUS, but not her (or Condi). I hope she is gracious enough to realize this and not run. There is no doubt that it would be another fiasco on the scale of Mondale, except much much worse.

Would she have conjure up the same response given the same set of circumstances, only changing the party she belongs too? I wonder. . .

Posted by: star11 | November 21, 2006 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Max - I was pointing out that this web site leans hopelessly left and is not a good measure for what will occur in the general population - like the fawning over Red Lamont in CN. the rest of the voters did not concur.

As far as my war views, since you asked:
I don't think the number of troops in place is the issue. It is the method that is the problem. why didn't we shoot looters? why didn't we bomb terrorists at a funeral? Why didn't we kill the bad guys in Sadr City? We are fighting this war according to how it will play on the news and still not getting favorable coverage. what is the point? I read that we are killing about 29 bad guys for every good guy we lose. I heard that schools are going well in Iraq. I heard that refugees are returning. I heard that 80% of the citizens voted. Still not seeing this info on the TV.

the border between Iran and Iraq doesn't seem to matter much. Retreating to Afganistan does nothing to solve any problems. Just what do you think leaving will accomplish? I believe that showing any sign of weakness will encourage the enemy to continue their advance with ever more determination. this is war between the 21st and 7th century. No one thought that the enemy would respond by killing their own people, this is a new tactic in warfare. what do you do about it - just let them?

It is not clear to me what the US ground forces can do but It is clear to me what will happen if they turn tail. Leaving assumes that somehow a more urgent sense of motivation is required of Iraq's leaders and that this will apply that properly. I see no evidence that this is the case and do see that the risk entailed is extreme if you are wrong. If this is indeed a war of attrition, we are doing it right and the border only matters to us. Let them continue to flow to where we can kill them without harm to our civilians, despite how crass this sounds.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I simply don't understand this comment.

"It is time for Will Marshall and CO (DLC) to retake the reigns of power in the Dem party or suffer an ignominious defeat ot any R candidate."

In the mid-terms it was the Dems who ran away from the DLC who won. Those who attempted to run on the DLC advice of being Republican-lite (Ford). The only reason Lieberman won was because he campaigned on being the exact opposite of who he actually is (not to mention being an incumbent).

Even Heath Shuler who is most often held up as DLC-type candidate is well to the left of their positions on economic matters. For example, he favors a balanced budget and rational tax policies and being honest about his position on social issues.

And Clark, whom you claim to like as he has shifted to the "right," is telling everyone who will listen that we need to get a lot smarter about Iraq, e.g., throwing more troops at the problem ain't being smart.


The current lingua franca for how politics and politicians are discussed is broken. Concepts like Left, Right, Conservative, and Liberal are broken. I'm a die-hard liberal, but I'm also a Clark supporter because I think he is the smartest guy in the room, and the only true leader amongst the possible Dem contenders. And one of the reasons I support him is because his candidacy and election would scramble all of the notions about what a "Democratic Liberal" is and what they stand for.

Posted by: Choska | November 21, 2006 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"The Dems won this last election by throwing off most of the R fossils and bringing in some new blood. to the extent they continue to do this and shake off the old Lib moniker, they will do well. Kerry, Kennedy and the rest will go the way of the dodo, a fitting place. the split in the Dem party between Pelosi pacifists and ultra-libs who will wreck the economy and surrender our values and wars stands no chance in the long run to the practical and effective moderates lead by Hoyer."

Not-so-subliminal message (with which Republicans console themselves as they cry themselves to sleep at night): "The Democrats had to go moderate to win." Shut up with this, because it isn't true. Tester wants to repeal the Patriot Act. Webb's first policy pronouncement after winning was his "shrinking the class gap" editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Ben Cardin, Jerry McNerny -- moderates? Yeah, moderates helped us win in Indiana and North Carolina. But the virtual tie between Barbara Cubin and Gary Trauner in Wyoming was hardly between a Republican and a virtual Republican. There's a new progressive Representative from Kentucky. You guys know this line is a lie, and if you had any integrity whatsoever you'd retire it, as you've retired the WMDs justification. No "there" there, etc.

Posted by: Max | November 21, 2006 5:02 PM | Report abuse

For the person that is afraid to idenify their self: Wake up and smell the coffee, if you can smell or is it you only put out [unelective-- polor-I-zing] [comments--opinions] these little tidbits that do not even merit discussion or just could it be that Hillary is so good you cannot take it and to beat it all the jealous factor creeps in and that from a woman or a man fits in nicely.

Posted by: lylepink | November 21, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

do you think that the option other than Hillary will be a centrist like Clarke or a lefty like Kerry/Gore? I wonder because somneone said the netroots will support her adversary, but what if she is the more liberal of the bunch?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"There are many Rs now who despise the mantel of compassionate conservative and want to stop the growth of government and spending. this will be the issue with a free-spending Dem vs a tight-wad R."

Why don't you guys quit framing these issues as though the last Democratic President were LBJ? Welcome to the present, a topsy-turvy world in which a Republican President and Congress thought it would be fun (and help them win a "permanent Republican majority") to spend untold billions on a needless war.

"who will the tighwad be? rudy. and don't lecture me about his Lib past. these are not issues that will frighten the base into voting for Hil."

Uh, no. They are issues that will frighten the base into voting for McCain or Romney. The base is not going to nominate a pro-gay Italian. Sorry. I agree that he'd have a strong shot in the general election.

"the answer to this war is to stop fighting with one hand tied behind our backs."

What does that mean? The McCain model of more troops? "This war," I assume, is Iraq, not the never-ending War on Terror (tm). Which hand is tied behind our back? Do we need to carpet bomb Iraq? Get the draft going again? Where has America come up short in terms of force in Iraq? Please explain, preferably without calling me a "lib" or referring to the "Democrat party."

"you'd think we would have learned that by now. I don't see any Dem coming up with a strong war policy coupled with smaller government."

Dems believe in moving troops back into Afghanistan and keeping some troops at close enough bay to Iraq that, should things get endlessly more horrible minus our presence, we're in a position to try to restrain things. There's the Levin plan to remove troops in mid '07, the Biden plan to carve up the country into ethnically homogenous regions. The Republican plan is what? Go on marginally restraining the violence with our current troop levels indefinitely? Bring in more troops, a la McCain? What is the strong war plan in your quarters?

"That is most certainly what the voters will be looking for in 2008, despite what this ultra-lib web site may think. Remember when you all thought that Red Lamont was the cat's meow. He wasn't."

No transition between the second and third sentences whatsoever, just the naked desire to rub some more salt in the only Democratic wound from the past cycle. Fine, that's the material you've got, go ahead and use it.

Posted by: Max | November 21, 2006 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Gore didn't win the nomination in 1988; he campaigned for it, but it ultimately went to Dukakis. Stevenson actually won the nomination in both 1952 and 1956, so Chris was fine in what he posted.

Clark has an impressive military resume to be sure, but even dark horse campaigns have to get their campaigns off the ground sooner as opposed to later. Clark's following is devoted and vocal, but it's too small to propel him rapidly to the top. Clark's candidacy has to be built methodically and carefully, or else he's going to be muscled out by the bigger names in the race. Personally I think his low-key demeanor better suits him for a VP slot or cabinet post, if indeed he wishes to pursue one.

Posted by: peter | November 21, 2006 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I think you may have something with Clark. He does not appeal to me but I have seen him get better over time and he has shifted right. I know many dems who will support him and even did last time around. He will pass the "electability" test. Not so for Edwards, who looks still like a boy and just won't convince anyone of his gravitas. Gore and Kerry are so lefty and so last decade. The Dems won this last election by throwing off most of the R fossils and bringing in some new blood. to the extent they continue to do this and shake off the old Lib moniker, they will do well. Kerry, Kennedy and the rest will go the way of the dodo, a fitting place. the split in the Dem party between Pelosi pacifists and ultra-libs who will wreck the economy and surrender our values and wars stands no chance in the long run to the practical and effective moderates lead by Hoyer. Examine the votes for Murtha and you will see the ratio. It is time for Will Marshall and CO (DLC) to retake the reigns of power in the Dem party or suffer an ignominious defeat ot any R candidate.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Anon,

Al Gore ran in 1988 for the Nomination and failed. He won the Nomination in 2000. Chris' facts are correct. Your premise, however, is correct. There have been many candidates who have repeatedly sought the nomination. However, once they win it, other than being renominated while President, Dem's will not nominate a previous loser. Stevenson was the last one, he lost both times, and his reputation within Democratic circles was greatly diminished for a long time afterwards.

Posted by: BlueDog | November 21, 2006 4:46 PM | Report abuse

These early season polls are worth than worthless. The fact that Chris would interrupt his vacation to comment on this poll is surprising; that he would validate its results is astonishing.

HRC is ahead right now simply due to name recognition. The trends that will drive the primary and the general election are not even in place yet.

I know the media can't resist claiming the authority of king (or queen) maker. Hence the need to name Clinton and McCain as the victors before a single official campaign speech is given. But they really ought to look around and what happen a few weeks ago before they interrupt their vacations to write blog posts naming HRC as the front runner on the basis of one flimsy poll.

All of that said, let me make a prediction. HRC is going to be fought every step of the way by whomever becomes the anti-HRC candidate. That person, be in Obama, Edwards, or Clark, is going to have more than enough cash from the netroots to contest every primary right up to the convention.

Even if Hillary wins a few early contests the fight against her will continue. I would not be surprised to see a divided convention because the people who are anti-Hillary are convinced that she can't win the general, and that her position on the ticket will threaten the Dem majorities in the House and the Senate.

And those people are right.

Posted by: Choska | November 21, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse

She has not done ANYTHING in six years in the Senate. What is she going to do in four years in the White House.

God save this country if there are that many people here that can be duped by someone like her.

Posted by: virgin12 | November 21, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I know a thing or two about the R base. I just don't see them rallying to the McCain cause. I have heard many say they would rather vote for Hillary than "kill the 1st amendment McCain". that is about the most extreme statement you can make. I for one will vote Libertarian again if it comes down to Hill vs McCain.

There are many Rs now who despise the mantel of compassionate conservative and want to stop the growth of government and spending. this will be the issue with a free-spending Dem vs a tight-wad R. who will the tighwad be? rudy. and don't lecture me about his Lib past. these are not issues that will frighten the base into voting for Hil. He cleaned up the crime, budget and more in NY. He brought back TImes Square for all to enjoy. He will be strong on foreign policy. the answer to this war is to stop fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. you'd think we would have learned that by now. I don't see any Dem coming up with a strong war policy coupled with smaller government. That is most certainly what the voters will be looking for in 2008, despite what this ultra-lib web site may think. Remember when you all thought that Red Lamont was the cat's meow. He wasn't.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

your post is factually incorrect.

"empirical evidence that Democrats are simply unwilling to nominate a past loser. (The last time that happened was in 1952 and 1956 when Adlai Stevenson was chosen as the nominee in back-to-back elections.)

did you forget that Al Gore ran and lost in 1988 and won the nomination in 2000?

Posted by: anon | November 21, 2006 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Gee, Republicans are insightful:

"The problem with Hillary is the problem with the Democratic party. It is still the party of special interests. There is no national consensus leader."

Barring a Presidential election, how are Democrats to come to a consensus regarding their single national leader? Are you just asking that the Zeitgeist make a nomination and pissed that it hasn't settled on a single figure? Must the party outside the White House have its own shadow President? If you lose the White House in '08, who will be your "national consensus leader" -- John Boehner? Mitch McConell? Mel Martinez? A came-up-short McCain or Romeny? I assume you're aware, Falls Church, that this is a pathetic straw man of an argument. OF COURSE the Democrats don't have a "national consensus leader." That doesn't mean they don't have national leaders -- Gore, Dean, Richardson, Obama, Durbin, Pelosi, Spitzer, Webb, Tester, Edwards -- of a very high caliber.


"The dems won seats in Congress because they ran against an unpopular war."

That's certainly one reason they won seats. Is it an illegitimate means of winning an election? Strikes me as more honorable than, say, "The Republicans won seats in Congress because they equated Max Cleland with Osama Bin Laden." Oh gee, those awful Dems took seats because their position was in accord with that of the country and they were proactive in articulating that fact. What a bunch of snivelling cheats.

"But this is still a capitalist country, much to the chagrin of the liberal media and liberal pundits."

Ooh, a zinger! You sure know how to beat down us pinkos, Falls Church. That's almost as impartial, informed, and verifiable a line as something like, "But even after Katrina there are living black Americans, much to the chagrin of the right-wing media and right-wing pundits (and minority whipper Trent Lott)."

"Obama stands no chance because he is so new and is no moderate,"

And that's the only reason us Lott-lovers would never think about voting for him, ahem.

"Edwards is a trial lawyer for pete's sakes"

Well! Now that ya put it that way...

"and who else are you going to nominate?"

Clark? Richardson? Kerry? Dodd? Bayh? In a perfect world, of course, the simple answer would be Gore.

"The Dems have a problem: their front-runner is un-electable."

Unlike, of course, the Republicans' two options: a soon-to-be 70-year-old with a high voice and a plan to send more troops to Iraq, or a one-term governor who left his office early so he wouldn't lose it and with it his Presidential chances. (Smart fella -- he should have had a word with George Allen).

Posted by: Max | November 21, 2006 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Falls Church,

You make two statements that deserve some response:

1. "...the problem with the Democratic party. It is still the party of special interests." And what, exactly, constitutes "special interest"? Would that be Halliburton, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Pharmaceuticals, Big Tobacco, The Gun Lobby, The Defense Establishment, etc., etc.? Please, both sides have their "interest groups" so to pretend only one side is obligated to "special interests" is either blatent lying, or living in denial, or both.

2. "There is no national [Democratic] consensus leader." Yes, that's right, that's the way we like it as it allows for debate, dissension, discussion, and discourse. In other words, Democracy. The Republicans have already decided McCain's their man, and intend to entertain us with their show of primary elections. We, Democrats, prefer to decide for ourselves. That may mean we lose the election, it may not, but ultimately we are all winners.


"There is no national consensus leader." Could this be a reference to Bush?

Posted by: BlueDog | November 21, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

--and it's up to the government to decide whether women should have b abies, right? because you really know a lot about that.

and yes, please keep writing about your voodoo economics. it's very amusing, as are all tall tales, superstitions and fairy tales.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

I understand that Clark has become a better campaigner and that he did a great deal of campaigning during the mid-terms. His problem in 2004 was that he was very awkward dealing with press questioning. I understand he has gotten much more polished. I think Clark would have the potential to pick up quite a few red states and bring in a heavier Democratic majority to the Congress. I think that Clark could decisively break the "soft on national security" image the Democrats have carried since the 1970s.

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 21, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree that Wes Clark is the dark horse here -- and could emerge as a strong candidate. I think he jumped inot the 2004 race a little too late and paid a price. He was not ready for prime time and the scrutiny that came with running for POTUS. He still managed to hang in there to the final "3" and win the Oklahoma primary. If he has been honing his game and media skills over the past 3 years, he could really emerge as a a top-flight candidate. I think a Clark +--Siebelius/Obama/Warner (any of the 3) would be kick butt ticket. Clark's military history would neutarlize McCain's as well.
HRC is a bad, bad, bad choice. I notice the only people that really call her a formidable candidate are Republicans.....its almost as if Republicans want her to run...hmmmmmmmmm

Posted by: HP | November 21, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Well, Ole hillary sure knows how to spend the money now doesn't she. If she can spend more than anyone in a run-away Senate race, just think what she can do with the US treasury. the press will sure love it, what with the scandal-a-day the clintons always seem to stumble into. and she can appoint all those crooks that slick willie pardoned to cabinet posts.

drindl, I have repeadetly tried to warn you against thinking about economics. It is a sport for rational people only. there are some very good points to replacing the income tax with a sales tax, including taxing the underground economy, rewarding savings and penalizing spending. and of course despite the rather bleak view of the outcome of abortion, it is a fact that without them, there would be more people.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 21, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

As someone who spent a lot of time at gatherings of Democrats this year, I don't see how Sen. Clinton can be called "front runner" in any sense other than the "Hillary = Mondale" sense above.

Where's the grass roots support? The folks at Democratic gatherings CNN or the Washington Post will never cover (local/ state gatherings) proclaiming their support for the Sen. from NY? The events I attended this year were blissfully free of 2008 discussions--except for one where a small group of people sitting around at the end of an event said they wouldn't support Clinton in the primary. Some of those folks were young enough to be maybe 10-15 years older than Chelsea Clinton. Or do only older Democrats matter?

I like Edwards, Clark, Obama, Biden, and any Gov. who can do well in debate with those folks. I'd like to see the selection of a nominee not be over by Valentine's Day.

And for the person who called Edwards a "liberal", isn't it time to ditch the 20th century political labels for something more relevant?

One more thing about Edwards, Clark, and Obama: isn't it time to nominate someone with a more humble childhood than someone who grew up in the sort of well-off households that Gore and Kerry grew up in?

FDR grew up wealthy but was able to connect with ordinary folks. Isn't it time to nominate someone else who can relate to the folks who work in factories, agriculture, hospitals, education, construction, sales, office work?

Or does asking that question make me a "liberal"?

Posted by: former national convention delegate | November 21, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I am looking for somebody with a message. That man is John Edwards. He can talk about America's challenges in terms of hope and promise.

In the general election, Edwards will shift the agenda to grounds that are favorable for Democrats. He will put the death nail into Reaganomics and redefine American politics for twenty years to come.

Edwards' message will be about bringing Americans together to reclaim the future for the middle class. With rising health insurance, housing, and higher education prices and declining median incomes that will reverberate.

Posted by: Yockel | November 21, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

'But this is still a capitalist country, much to the chagrin of the liberal media and liberal pundits.' Liberal pundits? You mean like Limbaugh, Hannity, Scarborough, Coulter, Ingraham, Novak, O'Reilly, Buchanan, Krauhammer, Hiatt, Buckley, Dobson, Viguerie, Falwell, Podharetz, Goldberg, Hitchens, Kaus? what liberal pundits.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 4:24 PM | Report abuse

The Repugs have a problem: their front-runner is un-electable. The base hates him. Tough. Get used to losing elections.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm serious, is the republican party the natural default for people with damaged brains?

'A Republican-led legislative panel claims in a new report on illegal immigration that abortion is partly to blame because it is causing a shortage of American workers.

The report from the state House Special Committee on Immigration Reform also claims "liberal social welfare policies" have discouraged Americans from working and encouraged immigrants to cross the border illegally.

The statements about abortion, welfare policies and a recommendation to abolish income taxes in favor of sales taxes were inserted into the immigration report by the committee chairman, Rep. Ed Emery.

All six Democrats on the panel refused to sign the report. Some of them called the abortion assertion ridiculous and embarrassing.

"There's a lot of editorial comment there that I couldn't really stomach," Rep. Trent Skaggs said Monday. "To be honest, I think it's a little delusional."

All 10 Republican committee members signed the report, though one of them, Rep. Billy Pat Wright, said Monday he didn't recall it connecting abortion and illegal immigration.'

Abolish income taxes in favor of sales taxes--that's a GREAT idea. Then every gallon of gas would cost $40. Brillaint thinking.

Posted by: drindl | November 21, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Hillary is the problem with the Democratic party. It is still the party of special interests. There is no national consensus leader. The dems won seats in Congress because they ran against an unpopular war. Don't talk to me about the economy - it's running along smoothly. Sure, there are always going to be people that say they should be better off and people that decry rich people. But this is still a capitalist country, much to the chagrin of the liberal media and liberal pundits. I have to give Hillary credit, she is stiving to reach to the moderates and saying all the right things to get centrist votes. But one has to belive from her history that she is a liberal trying to hide within a moderate's clothes. Obama stands no chance because he is so new and is no moderate, Edwards is a trial lawyer for pete's sakes and who else are you going to nominate? The Dems have a problem: their front-runner is un-electable. Tough. Get used to losing presidential elections.

Posted by: Falls Church | November 21, 2006 4:08 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I think you're a little too focused on oratorical skills. Bush is a terrible speaker, but he's president. Clark's not a great campaigner (surprise!) because he's not a lifelong politician--he's a retired flag officer.

But what he says makes sense, and I think that's what people are looking for now. Any normal person would get bored saying the same thing day after day, as politicians running for president do. Clark has improved on that, and the rest of his record is second to none.

Posted by: Alan | November 21, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

' Jim VandeHei is noted for his unique ability to swallow large, undigested chunks of spin that make absolutely no sense and perform ungodly convolutions trying to pretend that they do (see: Luskin, Robert). It's going to be damn hard to "pull back the curtain" for the benefit of an audience if access to your source depends on an absolute unwillingness to turn around and let them know they sound like they're just churning bullsh**. Harris, on the other hand, is just a complete toady to power. The temperamental alignment of the two with the DC elite and the subsequent journalistic contortions they have willingly performed in its service have done so very much to cause a crisis of confidence in traditional media and drive traffic to the blogs. This move to the "other side" is nothing if not dosed with supreme irony.

3) If there are two more prickly, thin-skinned journalists with absolutely no ability to accept the criticism of their "readers," I don't know offhand who they would be. To say that there is a train wreck in the offing as Harris and VandeHei strut forward to meet their adoring public would be putting it mildly.'

http://www.firedoglake.com/

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Well JimD, I like Clark a lot. But he's not a good campaigner either. Unless he's changed alot, he has no ability to connect. You know what i mean? Ever see Big Dog speak? It's riveting-- you feel like he's talking directly to you. Clark is cool and disconnected, almost robotic.

Have you seen Gore speak lately? He's really gotten good. He's passionate, he beleives in what he's saying... and it shows, you can feel it. We need authenticity, we need to beleive--'electability' has alot to do with purely emotional factors. You may vote for someone, but will you work for them, will you get out the vote, will you campaign, will you donate? A winning candidate's got to get people that excited.


Posted by: drindl | November 21, 2006 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Agree with last post, a couple people here seem to be a little fixated on Sharpton and Jackson. I wonder why? Hmm...

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"Please, oh please let her be the Dem nominee and have Sharpton as her VP candidate!! Either that or Teresa Heinz."

Why do idiots even bother posting crap like this?

you're at the wrong site ... you must be looking for WashingtonTIMES.com

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Please, oh please let her be the Dem nominee and have Sharpton as her VP candidate!! Either that or Teresa Heinz.

Posted by: Stick | November 21, 2006 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Polls at this stage of the game are heavily influenced by name recognition. Clinton, Gore and Kerry are well known. As the contests develop, there may be a chance for some of the less well known candidates to emerge and find a following. The problem the lesser knowns will have is building a war chest that would allow them to compete with Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton is definitely the front-runner, but I have long believed that she is far too divisive. Should she be the candidate, a lot of the new Democratic congresspeople from red districts will be one term wonders. I find Senator Obama exciting but wonder whether someone with so little experience on the national political scene can be elected president. I think Kerry and Gore are terrible candidates. I am personally unimpressed by Edwards. Governor Richardson has the ideal resume but I am somewhat concerned about the rumors of "poor discipline". I also think the fiasco over the Weng Ho Lei case could make some very effective 30 second spots. I do not think that a Democratic presidential candidate with no national security creditials can be elected in the post 9-11 era. That would complicate the candidacy of Governors other than Richardson. By process of elimination, I conclude that Wesley Clark would be the best candidate. I think a retired 4 star general would be able to attract votes from groups that generally go Republican. A ticket with Clark and either Governor Katherine Sibelius of Kansas or Senator Obama would be very electable.

Posted by: JimD in FL | November 21, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY will be the next POTUS???

What is it about her that moves you? She's a big-money candidate. Cautious. Programmed. A dreadfully boring speaker. A northeastern Senator. A polarizing figure.

No grass-roots support. And she's not even willing to work for it. Think she'll campaign in Iowa? Think she'll visit every county out there ... letting people get to know her?

What is she running for anyway? What's driving her? Other than her ego, need for power? Do you think America wants Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

It's time for new energy. A fresh start. Someone who isn't a top-down establishment candidate who earns grass-roots support and builds a broad coalition.

Edwards -- Obama -- Gore -- Clark -- almost anyone is a more inspired choice.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's popularity right now is a lot like GWB popularity in 2000--riding the coattails of a presidential relative.

That's not meant as an insult to Clinton, because I can't imagine anyone being as incompetent as GWB.

That being said, President Clinton was a self-made man.

Wesley Clark, the forgotten man in this poll, is also a self-made man. 4-star general, Rhodes Scholar, former NATO Commander, fluent in Russian, German, Spanish....leader, scholar, war hero. What else could a voter want?

Posted by: Alan | November 21, 2006 3:17 PM | Report abuse

FYI All: Most know my favorite ticket is Clinton/Warner. Another day and the electable factor comes to the forefront as it does just about all over the media from those that oppose her. Write it down on your notebook that Hillary will be the next POTUS if,and this is a BIG IF, she chooses to run. That my friends you can take to the bank.

Posted by: lylepink | November 21, 2006 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I would credit Hillary's success in this poll - as well as Giuliani's success in GOP polls - to a mere function of name familiarity. Clinton is a well-known name that doesn't bear the stigma of past defeat. Most Democrats know little about the other candidates that have yet to take a national stage, such as Vilsack and Bayh. Most Republicans, in addition to knowing little about Romney or Huckabee or Brownback, probably know little about Giuliani's actual ideological positioning.

I dislike taking polls this early because it clouds people's impressions of more substantive information that might be available to them later.

Posted by: peter | November 21, 2006 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's dad has been dead a long time now. Couldn't we just drop the rather pretensious "Rodham"?

Posted by: David Kittell | November 21, 2006 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's dad has been dead a long time now. Can't we save time and space by dropping the "Rodham"?

Posted by: David Kittell | November 21, 2006 3:01 PM | Report abuse

And Tom Vilsack is her Iowa boy...taking that caucus off the table...

The media -- "Chris, Are you listening?" -- will focus elsewhere as hometown boy (DLCer and Big Hillary Fan and likely veep candidate if she wins), makes Iowa moot.

Why? Because isn't a state and caucus process like that in Iowa -- one that requires all the skills and intangibles she lacks?
ie, one-on-one campaigning. Personal warmth. Time. Time. More time. Visiting EVERY county. Time and more time.

Hillary is not even willing to work for it. It makes me sick sometimes to think about it. She'll move on to Nevada (yes, a caucus) but will spend millions on Las Vegas TV and then it's on to NHampshire, Clinton turf.

I loathe this process. Vilsack doing her dirty work in Iowa. The media -- "Chris, still listening?" -- playing right along. If Hillary wants it -- then Hillary should go EARN it. WORK for it. Do the real work on the ground and build support based on ideas, interaction with voters, small 'd' democracy.

Nah -- she'd rather buy the thing and roll the dice and try to win the Kerry states and Ohio! Inspiring.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"Intelligent, savvy, energized challengers will emerge (like Hart in 84), who will appear to be much stronger candidates in any general election match-up, but money, media, and the party establishment will likely ensure her nomination."

If Hillary = Mondale, then Hart = Biden.

Hillary is a guaranteed defeat. Polls about 08 Dem nominees are worthless at this point, as the average voter only knows a handful of nominees.

One thing that this poll shows is what voters think of Edwards: good choice for VP, but they don't trust him to be president.

Posted by: JR Flanders | November 21, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Clark was behind Kerry (7%), with 4%. No one else rated above 3%. I think Clark is thee dark horse being ignored here, but that's probably a good thing. People will have Clinton-Obama-Edwards-Kerry- fatigue by the time votes are cast, since they get all the ink in the early running.

Clark (and maybe Edwards) is the only one who has a chance to claim enough southern states to take the whole thing.

Posted by: Why Gloss Over Wesley Clark's 4%? | November 21, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is the Walter Mondale of 2008.

Huge establishment support. Tons of money. Media frontrunner. Name recognition fueling public opinion poll frontrunner status. Which the media then points to as evidence that she's "popular" and furthers aura of inevitability.
Overly cautious candidate.
Uninpsiring, bordering on dull.
Top-down support.
Grass-roots can't stand her.
Can win the nomination but will lose the election.
No compelling reason for running other than, like in 1984, it just seemed like the thing to do.
Intelligent, savvy, energized challengers will emerge (like Hart in 84), who will appear to be much stronger candidates in any general election match-up, but money, media, and the party establishment will likely ensure her nomination.

2008 = 1984...except there is no GOP incumbent...only a white-haired self-styled "maverick" who is flip-flopping on every major issue of the day...who will ride in from the west claiming to be the heir to the Reagan throne --- is that really what we need? More tax breaks for the rich? More military spending? Empty, morning in America rhetoric from a scandal-tainted (Keating 5/Abramoff) Washington Insider/flip-flopper/Bush aplogist?

I think not. But with the lumbering, slumbering Hillary train the only alternative -- McCain's white horse/double-talk express will be the only ride in town.

Unless the Dems wise up...grow up..move on from the next Walter Mondale and give themselves a fighting chance in 2008.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I just hope that Clinton is enlightened enough to have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton as her vp.

Posted by: Fred | November 21, 2006 2:05 PM | Report abuse

I think we have to remember what happened in 2004 while considering such polls. Democratic voters tend to vote on electability, not just preference. Voters liked Dean, but voted for Kerry since they though he would be better positioned to beat Bush.

This poll may reflect a preference, however someone like Edwards is probably not electable in the general election (my gut is that many moderates and conservatives have a highly unfavorable opinion of him, myself included). Even if liberals like Edwards, it is hard to imagine many people voting for him because he is so unelectable. In this respect, Hillary is particularly well-positioned because she has a lot of support AND has more credentials than any of the other major players listed above.

Of course, if a governor such as Richardson publicly announced, he might get more recognition in these polls and change the dynamics. After all, governors are the most electable of all.

Posted by: Dom Nardi | November 21, 2006 2:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company