Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Post-ABC Poll: Clinton, Giuliani Lead Primary Fields

On the day that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton officially entered the 2008 presidential sweepstakes, a new Washington Post-ABC News survey shows her with a wide lead over her potential Democratic rivals.

Clinton took 41 percent in a hypothetical primary field against 12 other Democrats, far ahead of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) at 17 percent, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C) at 11 percent and former Vice President Al Gore at 10 percent. The party's 2004 nominee -- Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) -- received 8 percent support. No other candidate crested three percent.

Those numbers are virtually unchanged from a Post-ABC survey in December that showed Clinton at 39 percent, Obama at 17 percent and Edwards at 12 percent.

"This poll confirms Hillary Clinton's early frontrunner status among likely contenders for the Democratic nomination," said Post polling director Jon Cohen. "It also indicates how little the intense media speculation and intrigue about Barack Obama's candidacy over the past month has increased his standing among Democrats nationally."

On the Republican side, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani held a 34 percent to 27 percent lead over Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), with no other potential candidate registering in double digits. Former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) took nine percent each. Sen. Sam Brownback, who formally entered the race today, stood at one percent in the poll.

The poll was in the field from Jan. 16-19. It tested 561 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and 344 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. The Democratic numbers have a four percent margin of error; the Republican side has a 5 percent margin of error.

The topline information on the two 2008 primary questions is on the next page.

24. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel), for whom would you vote?

NET LEANED VOTE:

                         1/19/07     12/11/06
Hillary Clinton            41           39
Barack Obama               17           17
John Edwards               11           12
Al Gore                    10           10
John Kerry                  8            7
Joe Biden                   3            2
Wesley Clark                1            1
Bill Richardson             1            2
Dennis Kucinich             1           NA
Chris Dodd                  *            *
Mike Gravel                 *           NA
Tom Vilsack                 *            1
Other (vol.)                1            *
None of these (vol.)        2            2
Would not vote (vol.)       *            1
Evan Bayh                  NA            1
No opinion                  3            4

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone January 16-19, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults. Overall the results have a three-point error margin; the results for this question have a 4-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.

25. (ASKED OF LEANED REPUBLICANS) If the 2008 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, George Pataki, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, or Ron Paul), for whom would you vote?

NET LEANED VOTE:

                      1/19/07     12/11/06
Rudy Giuliani           34           34
John McCain             27           26
Mitt Romney              9            5
Newt Gingrich            9           12
George Pataki            2            3
Sam Brownback            1            1
Jim Gilmore              1           NA
Mike Huckabee            1            *
Ron Paul                 1           NA
Tom Tancredo             1            *
Tommy Thompson           1            2
Chuck Hagel              *            *
Duncan Hunter            *            1
Other (vol.)             *            *
None of these (vol.)     2            6
Would not vote (vol.)    1            *
No opinion               9            9

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone January 16-19, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults. Overall the results have a three-point error margin; the results for this question have a five-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 20, 2007; 3:34 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Embarks on High-Tech Listening Tour
Next: Who's Who at Team Clinton

Comments

qfclrhisb ynecolhr smxvutp vnuetywb bfkjh oqbezt sjua

Posted by: xslzycta xrof | February 15, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

qfclrhisb ynecolhr smxvutp vnuetywb bfkjh oqbezt sjua

Posted by: xslzycta xrof | February 15, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

qfclrhisb ynecolhr smxvutp vnuetywb bfkjh oqbezt sjua

Posted by: xslzycta xrof | February 15, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of the Republican party. I will not be voting Republican in 2008.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting just about all of the front-runners are pro-war in some regard. I thought the recent Congressional elections were a statement about Iraq. Talk about cognitive dissonance! Either there's something afoot with the polling, or the respondents really are not familiar with the front-runners positions on foreign military intervention.

I support Ron Paul (R-Tex.) He has been a consistent advocate of individual liberty throughout his career, and he's someone whom rational conservatives, libertarians and left-leaning people who care about civil liberties can support.

Blogs and Yahoo groups are abuzz with enthusiasm about Ron. Check out ron paul dot org. He's even on the myspace for God's sakes!

Posted by: Tom W (Fla.) | February 1, 2007 9:53 PM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best mjor candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | January 31, 2007 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Republicans suck! In fact you have the worst president of all time...George Bush

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

I love how the liberals call out other's when they obviously don't use their *real* name and other democrats omitted a name on this site as well. Not only is that gutless but typical liberal hypocrisy.


Posted by: no name | January 24, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I left the country in August 2005. I live in Montreal, Quebec.

I love how right-wing loonies on this blog are such gutless wonders that they violate this site's rules and refuse to sign their names to their posts.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | January 24, 2007 6:41 AM | Report abuse

Americans know better. It was the liberals who threatened to leave the country when President Bush won the last election. Sadly, and the hypocrites that they are, most are still here.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 23, 2007 11:50 PM | Report abuse

I like how Hillary haters say they will leave the country if she wins...lets see how many of them leave when she does win!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 23, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

I love that every person who apparently hates Hilary has mentioned no legitimate reason for it. It exposes your ignorance when you simply say you will never vote for someone point blank. Do your own research and quit listening to people who just say that she's cold. I think that Obama is wonderful and I'm interested to see how he fares in these next few months but he definitely has more to prove than Hilary. She has shown herself to be an excellent politican, a strong candidate and I believe that she would make a wonderful president.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 23, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary? This is a woman who claims that she had no clue that her husband was cheating on her. And people want her as the president? Unbelievable.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 23, 2007 5:42 AM | Report abuse

In relation to Condi Rice, I can't seriously imagine anyone who has been so involved with the Bush administration, is so close to Bush, would have a chance of getting elected. She would be a bad candidate because of her involvement in the decision to invade Iraq. Even several prominent neo-cons (notably Richard Perle) have been quite critical of her as National Security Advisor.

Posted by: Anthony | January 23, 2007 4:18 AM | Report abuse

What's wrong with Jennifer Granholm is that she was born in Canada, and thus is constitutionally ineligible to be president.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | January 23, 2007 1:56 AM | Report abuse

YESSSS I'm with you too. Hillary is going to be great!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Get ready for First Woman President of USA. Shame to call US an advanced nation when not a single woman has ever been a President when third world nations like Sri Lanka, Phillipines, Bangladesh, Indonesia, India and even conservative nation like Pakistan has had woman run then nation's show. Its about time since last 7 years under Republican rule has been horrible. Enormous damage has been done by Bush to America, Americans and rest of the World. Bush destroyed great relations with friendly nations like Germany, France, Canada.... I can go on and on but we all know ..its time for a change. Bill Clinton was great - under his Presidency economy was booming. Americans weren't hated ..... Hillary will be great to have as the next President of USA. I hope she wins with a landslide victory.

Posted by: HP | January 22, 2007 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Condi will not run. She supports George Bush on everything so her chances of winning would be slim.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 9:27 PM | Report abuse

A more inclusive list of female Governors:

AK Sarah Palin - R
AZ Janet Napolitano - D
CT M. Jodi Rell - R
DE Ruth Ann Minner - D
HI Linda Lingle - R
KS Kathleen Sebelius - D
LA Kathleen Blanco - D
MI Jennifer Granhold - D
WA Christing Gregoire - D

I'm sorry for not putting up a more detailed list. Others were not left off through malice - only that they weren't on lists for re-elections. Some of those listed before are those who were re-elected this time around.

Posted by: dweeb | January 22, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

If the country wants a woman - what is wrong with any of the following female governors?

Linda Lingle of Hawaii - Republican I include her for facts - but I have no idea why anyone would want to ever leave Hawaii to be president. There are just some things that you couldn't ask someone to do!

Jennifer Granholm of Michigan - A Democrat

Jodi Rell of Connecticut - A Republican in charge of a Democratic State

Janet Napolitano of Arizona - A Democrat in charge of a republican state that enjoys support from both democrats and republicans.

Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas - A democrat

An observation made by another site is that these women are in states dominated by the other party.

Would it not seem that a fresh new start could include one of these qualified women? And why not?

If the public doesn't want Washington re-treads - and races favor Governors, any one of these talented, successful women could possibly qualify.

Posted by: dweeb | January 22, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Just for a lark, are there any other female governors on either side of the aisle who would be to anyone's liking?

Posted by: dweeb | January 22, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

If Condi Rice were running - I wouldn't hesitate. I'd be out doing anything and everything I could to help her. She is one of the most amazing women I've watched in politics.

She is elegant, and eloquent in her presentations. She is clear about her positions while not appearing demeaning. She has a sense of who she is and what she believes, without conveying to someone else that they're wrong if they don't agree with her.

She's everything I would ever want in a candidate and President. But what we want and what is reality are far apart.

Posted by: dweeb | January 22, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

What a weekend for political news.
What interesting comments in here today as I read the blog, including data showing support for Condi Rice.

Zogby should be congratulated for including Condi Rice as long as he was including the other NON-candidate Newt; that is only fair treatment.
So Newt gets 13% in Iowa and Condi has 9%.
Fine with me, since it also higher than Romney or Tancredo or Hagel or Brownback.
Should they quit? NO, this is the early playoff games right now. And a few GOP events are coming up this year.

In New Hampshire, Secretary Rice comes in 3rd at 7% (Rudy and McCain are 1 and 2)
So again, this is wonderful to show that she is a viable candidate in the minds of the voters.

She has no interest? You mean like a power-hungry woman who has been thirsting for power for the past 7 years? Strange that Condi has to be willing to give up her job NOW in order to be taken seriously.
I wonder how many Senators would be willing to run for president now if they had to resign before they enter the race?
You see, there is a law which will not allow any Cabinet Secretary to work on a presidential campaign or take a leave of absence. If Condi wanted to run NOW, she would have to resign. There is too much work to do NOW.

Did you know she is flying to Paris for an International conference to raise money in assistance for Lebanon? How many of you know that Condi is fluent in French, the international language of diplomats?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100881.html

Donna, did you think Howard Dean was going to buy the White House with his $50 million in 2004?
What makes you think Hillary will win the nomination just because she has the most money? That is a total myth.

Dweeb, thank you for saying you want a female president or VP. Is Condi Rice more suitable for you?

Steve, I agree, if Hillary was such an effective politican, her name would be on some legislation. You are also correct about Senators not being elected as president. There are only 2 of them that got elected directly as the next President, Harding 1920 and JFK 1960.
Sadly, both died in their first terms.

Posted by: Tina | January 22, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

He isn't running for pope. That's pretty funny mystuff.

I would agree - and he is "camera" ready. He appears to be charming - but he has some explaining to do on his positions. He's had a couple of so-called "flip flops" that are going to be points of contention for him.

Personally, I believe that if the far right can get past this obsession with "all or nothing" consensus on a candidate - Romney may have some very viable views on National Security and new ideas on national reforms that are needed.

National security and the economy are what is important - not what church or mosque someone attends.

Posted by: dweeb | January 22, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I'll stick with an unknown. Romney sounds like someone who has been able to run a liberal state while remaining conservative. Oh, I know for some it wouldn't be conservative enough but I like someone who can stick to their principles and still work with the other side. I don't care about his religion. He isn't running for pope. He looks like the most logical choice on BOTH sides of the isle.

Posted by: mystuff | January 22, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I'll stick with an unknown. Romney sounds like someone who has been able to run a liberal state while remaining conservative. Oh, I know for some it wouldn't be conservative enough but I like someone who can stick to their principles and still work with the other side. I don't care about his religion. He isn't running for pope. He looks like the most logical choice on BOTH sides of the isle.

Posted by: mystuff | January 22, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Presidential polls will definitely shift - and the Democratic party has to shift with it.

The really big problem the Democrats have is their far left. The far left took the numerous wins from the last election as an endorsement of their far left agenda - and that's just not the case.

A fair amount of the democrat seat shifts went to democrats who had relatively conservative agendas like tightening border security, curbing government spending, tort reform, etc. One democrat even has a "pro gun" agenda. But the far-far left doesn't see that. They took it as a wholesale endorsement of the far far left ideology.

A very stark example was Nancy Pelosi's resounding set back when her personal endorsement for John Murtha was defeated by 149-86 in favor of Steny Hoyer for House Majority Leader. 149 - this doesn't just represent "new" democrats coming in - that also represents democrats that have worked with her.

And when given the opportunity to vote "silently" - no names - meaning there wouldn't be any repercussions - a majority of the democrats were not with Pelosi. She seems to have gotten that message and understood what it meant.

The problem for the Democrats is that their far left base doesn't understand that. And the Democrats somehow need to convey this to their far left supporters without alienating them.

Not an easy task - but necessary if they want to continue success. They need to tact center - not left. The group of people that now do not affiliate with either the right or left has grown to, some speculate, almost 30%. That's not something to be ignored.

And that's a problem for any candidate. The moderates in both parties, plus 30% centrists. That quite a swathe for any candidate to try to convey leadership to

Posted by: dweeb | January 22, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Presidential polls at this very early point mean little because they really measure nothing but name recognition. Go back and look what the polls said about the 2004 Democratic nomination contest in January 2003. Wesley Clark hadn't even gotten in the race at that point. I'm not sure Al Gore, and thus Joe Lieberman, had decided whether they were running yet.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | January 22, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

LET'S BRING BACK A CANDIDATE THAT HAS NEW FOUND PASSION-AL GORE. HIS EXPERIENCE IS NEEDED BUT HIS PASSION CAN CREATE UNITY AND EXCITEMENT. REMEMBER MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR HIM NATIONWIDE THEN BUSH. HE WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT THEN THE REST OF THE PACK. GORE WOULD QUICKLY MOVE UP ON HILLERY'S POLL LEAD AND GET THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION. OBAMA CAN BE ELECTRIFYING BUT IS NOT QUITE READY AND PREPARED TO TAKE ON CLINTON. ONLY GORE CAN TAKE ON CLINTON IN A POWERFUL WAY. HE CAN GARNER A BROADER APPEAL THEN OTHER DEMS AND REPUBLICANS. HE COULD WIN BIG IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

Posted by: Cameron | January 22, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

On the democrat side, Mark Warner was someone who was very attractive. Historically, southern Governors fair well - and he has a very successful track record - middle of the road - he would have made an wonderful candidate.

In my opinion, he was someone who could have and would have swept the election.

Posted by: dweeb | January 22, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

The polls are going to change for everyone running. The Republicans in here keep saying that if a Democrat wins for president America will turn into a disaster...What the hell do you think George Bush has done? Has he done a good job??? it doesn't matter democrat or republican for president. The country isn't as solid as it was with Bill Clinton, like it or not. Most strong conservatives are against a woman being president and a black being president. The Clintons are extremely hard to beat and your changes of Hillary winning are high. Our own president, vice president, and the republican house leader think she will win. Getting the hint that its just going to happen? If you think Hillary Clinton has done nothing good for New York then you need to research her and ask New Yorkers why they have nearly 70% of the vote to her.

Posted by: Peter | January 22, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry. Another historical source said 15 presidents were Senators (not 13) - but only 2 went directly from the Senate to the Presidency.

Apparently I wasn't looking at the information correctly. Sorry.

Posted by: dweeb | January 22, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

It's not necessarily a bad thing that the candidates are senators. As noted - senators have exposure and are more well known.

I'm not sure what Richardson has actually accomplished. A drawback for him. Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I can't think of any of his accomplishments.

As senators, Clinton, Obama and Edwards can point to their voting records - or others will - as their strengths that they bring to the table.

Clinton especially. That is where she stands the best chance - and to avoid reliving the past.

Obama has a track record also which he can point to, as he needs to prove he's qualified. Each of them has something they can either tout or defend.

According to information I found, only 6 senators have run for and won the presidency - while it's been 10 governors. However - 13 senators have gone on to be VP - and 4 (?) of those have gone on to be President. (?) I'm not sure I'm looking at the data correctly.

If Richardson is to be any type of a viable candidate - he needs to start to tout his "bona fides" to people. As of right now, I can't think of any credentials that make him qualified, hence the point of a different poster here - what notable accomplishments do you have - what event makes you noteworthy?

Posted by: dweeb | January 22, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Hlllary sure brings out the morons -- they really are terrified of her.

It's truly amazing how siimpleminded and gullible repugs are. amazing. It boggles the mind. Dittoheads every one.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

I wonder why a candidate such as Bill Richardson isn't being more seriously considered by pundits. Popular, moderate Governors who are considered moderates have a much higher success rate as Presidential candidates than Senators, yet the three main Democrat candidates so far (ie Clinton, Obama & Edwards) have or were Senators. How many Senators have run for President in the last 40 years (I don't know because there have been so many) and how many have won (answer - zero).
In addition to been a Governor, Richardson has the additional plus of having significant international, cabinet and congressional experience.
If not Richardson, perhaps another popular, moderate Governor.

Posted by: Anthony | January 22, 2007 4:50 AM | Report abuse

I am and have always been a registered Republican. Moderate to Conservative one can say. I am also critic enough to recognize what a stupendous FAILURE this Bush administration has been. Through the years I went from lauding to defending to justifying to admiting the incompentence of this administration which President Bush has led. I believe that it has been so bad that I want to vote Democrat for the first time ever in regards to a presidential candidate.

Having said the following, there is NO WAY, simply IMPOSSIBLE that I would ever vote for Hillary. I would rather vote for a 3rd time candidacy of the incompetent Bush than have the prospect of another 8 years of Clintons in the White House. Yes, I would vote for any other Democratic candidate as long as the prospect of having had 8 years of Clintons, followed with 8 years of Bush and then have to be followed by 4 or possibly 8 years of Clintons again. Never.

The scandals, the affairs (and no, Bill, I am sure did not suddenly put his little Willy in hibernation), the Hollywood hobnobbing, all this stuff... NO WAY, NO WAY would I want that to be the future of America. The Clintons are political animals that say one thing, do the other and are entitled to their lies because they believe they are rightful heirs to American political royalty but in reality nothing more than hillbillies from Arkansas who made it rich through shady deals and lots of lip. Anything that comes from their mouths is immediately interpreted by me to be something people want to hear and not what they really think.

This is just how I think and how I will vote.

Posted by: MBE | January 22, 2007 3:40 AM | Report abuse

Iowa poll at 2% for Tancredo
Rep. Tom Tancredo pulls just 2 percent in the latest Iowa presidential poll, but his sixth-place showing in a crowded field means he has the potential to influence the debate, pollster John Zogby said this week.

Zogby's latest telephone poll in Iowa shows former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading the Republican field with 19 percent, followed by Arizona Sen. John McCain, 17 percent; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, of Georgia, 13 percent; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 9 percent; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 5 percent; Tancredo, 2 percent; Sen. Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska, 2 percent.

The poll, which included Rice even though she has said she has no interest in running, found 22 percent of respondents were "not sure" of any of the Republican contenders.

"On the Republican side, the two most talked-about candidates are doing well and will fight it out for the support of moderate Republicans and independents," Zogby said in a Wednesday release.

"But our polling in this race also begs the question: Is Newt Gingrich the choice of the conservative wing?"

Zogby said Gingrich could "complicate" efforts by Giuliani and McCain to move further to the right, and he also took note of Tancredo, who has become a national lightning rod over his crusade opposing illegal immigration.

"An interesting development can also be found in the 2 percent support for conservative Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado," Zogby said. "It means that, if nothing else, he and Newt are going to influence the internal debate in the Republican Party."

Tancredo made his latest scouting trip to Iowa last weekend and on Tuesday morning announced that he is forming an exploratory committee so he can begin fundraising and decide, probably by the summer, whether he will go forward with a longshot run for president.


(1/19/2007)
- By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=14259

--------------------------------------
Early New Hampshire Poll Puts Obama And McCain In The Lead
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - A new poll in the state to hold the first primary, New Hampshire, shows different results than a concurrent national poll involving who might win their party's nomination in 2008.

A Zogby survey shows U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) takes the top spot in his party, while U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) holds a lead among GOP voters in the Granite State.

In the Democratic party, Obama beats U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) 23 percent to 19, which is the opposite of what a national Gallup/USA Today poll found, which put the former first lady ahead 29 percent to 18. Also, unique, New Hampshire voters were tied on Senator Clinton and former Senator John Edwards, each receiving 19 percent.

Republican voters in New Hampshire also differ from the national survey. Voters who would rather "live free or die" chose Senator McCain over former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, by a margin of 26 percent to 20. Also, a surprising 7 percent of voters think former National Security Advisor and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is ready for a promotion and wouldn't mind seeing her behind the desk in the Oval Office.

However, what may be the most important finding, was that 8 in 10 voters said they would "likely change their minds" before they actually went to the voting booth in New Hampshire's primary.


(1/19/2007)
- By Matthew Borghese , All Headline News


http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=14254


Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 2:19 AM | Report abuse

If John Kerry, a man who managed to outdo Al Gore for most boring man in the world, can get within cooee of GWB, then Hilary could win in a canter. Just do a bit of research on the Clinton organization, have they ever been beaten in anything they do?! Edwards should have been the candidate in 2004. He didn't swing North Carolina to Dems. If you can't win your own state, you have no place in national politics. Clinton-Richardson vs McCain-Romney

Posted by: Nathan | January 22, 2007 1:37 AM | Report abuse

I agree with KJB. The left just does not get it. Political correctness is what is losing this war. IMO- if a democrat is elected president, then our country is in serious trouble.

And the by the way, the economy was so great during the clinton years because it was a republican congress. Bill was too busy pardoning criminals and ignoring the threat of radical islam.


Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 1:26 AM | Report abuse

I think that Mike Huckabee will suprise alot of folks in the Iowa primary. He's a governor, a very charming guy, and he's a Reagan conservative. Alot of people are not paying attention to him. His presidential campaign is going to be a political perfect storm when he gains momentum and upsets McCain.

Posted by: Lee Davis | January 21, 2007 11:58 PM | Report abuse

I think that Mike Huckabee will suprise alot of folks in the Iowa primary. He's a governor, a very charming guy, and he's a Reagan conservative. His presidential campaign is going to be a political perfect storm as he gains momentum.

Posted by: Lee Davis | January 21, 2007 11:56 PM | Report abuse

I think that Mike Huckabee will suprise alot of folks in the Iowa primary. He's a governor, a very charming guy, and he's a Reagan conservative. His presidential campaign is going to be a political perfect storm as he gains momentum.

Posted by: Lee Davis | January 21, 2007 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Wendy: THANK YOU.

Posted by: lylepink | January 21, 2007 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Wendy: THANK YOU.

Posted by: lylepink | January 21, 2007 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps you could remind us of a few of Hillary's many accomplishments Wendy. Then again, probably not. Ever wonder why she chose to run in NY and not in the places she spent most of her life (i.e. Illinois and Arkansas)? Could it be that the people that know her best despise her?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton for president, it is about time. In all the time that I have view Hillary's accomplishments I have the highest respect for her goals and ambitions. In even her smallest achievements, she has every citizen in the United States as a priority. From the smallest child's education, the young troops at war, to the devastating reality of the social security system not being viable for our children. No individual's needs go unnoticed or overlooked.
Yes, I remember a stronger nation, a stronger economic system when B. Clinton was President. What Bill built in his 8 year term, was destroyed with in the first year of "Bush". I'm not asking for opinions. It is all facts people. Hillary isn't on a shirt tale either, she always was independently competent.
Imagine a president that focuses on the needs of the families. She wants to negotiate world peace and bring our young troops home as her first priority. Isn't it about time that this "war" is over and our soldiers stop dieing and come home and be with their families where they belong? Yes, we commend every last one for their patronage and fighting for our county but it is time that this terrible war was extinguished.
I am one person with a big voice and I intend on supporting her in what ever way I am able. I would like to add, I am a Christian and I believe in the goodness and kindness of human kind. The world needs someone like her to bring back family values. Not hatred and war, and trying to control every human being. Our human rights are being violated in new ways everyday by this present democracy.
I offer my support, "thank you," and "God bless you," in hopes to making this nation stronger and more powerful than we ever imagined. She can do it! The world not ready for her, my god, we are past ready, we are in dire need.

Posted by: Wendy | January 21, 2007 11:39 PM | Report abuse

too bad tom tancredo is barely noticed. i would vote for him. the guy is a real person, a real family man, a humble gentleman with a righteous zeal for the USA. God Forbid any democrats win. Not that they aren't human--but. I'm an old hippie but I grew up.

Posted by: g carminati | January 21, 2007 10:58 PM | Report abuse

You're wrong Lucas. Gore lost the first one and Kerry lost the second one. I knew you were having a hard time. You were right though, they are morons and this is the greatest county in the world!!

By the way, I don't have to stop to think....some of us can actually walk, talk, etc. AND think at the same time. Try it sometime when no one else is around. (Wouldn't want an innocent bystander to get hurt!!)

Posted by: KJB | January 21, 2007 10:57 PM | Report abuse

KJB:
Anyone who uses the phrase "Giving comfort to the enemy" should be - oh, nevermind...

Did you ever stop to think (a new concept for you, I'm sure) that the greatest comfort our enemy has is knowing that 60,000,000 people in the greatest country in the world voted a complete moron into the White House not once, but twice? That alone should inspire and "comfort" them for decades.

Posted by: Lucas | January 21, 2007 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Great response, Lucas. How long did it take you to come up with this response involving anal rape by an entire football team?? Which phrase is more proper in any debate? Sounds to me like You're not quite over it yet. My point was simply that had Gore won in exactly the same manner the press would not be saying how Bush was robbed, etc. It's simply a fact of life that day in and day out we hear the left point of view through all forms of communication. They are the first to criticize our own nation and are quick to give comfort to our enemies by providing them with any top secret information they can get their hands on, all with the thought that the end justifies the means. Had we all stuck together during this war it would have been over long ago. Our divisons simply embolden the enemy In the meantime, if the liberal press can convince enough people to vote their way and their candidates win in the long run, it does not matter how much irrepairable damage they have done to us in the long run. Instead of us against them it has become fashionable to be us against U.S. in these media centers.

Come back with another response, Lucas. Perhaps you might question my sexual preference or if I'm in cahoots with the devil. Or maybe you could just use that debate ending phrase "Nanny, Nanny Poo Poo". That would certainly make everyone respect your intellegence more!!
:>)-

Posted by: KJB | January 21, 2007 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Im voting for the Dems. Go Hillary Go Obama Go Edwards All of them are good!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 10:10 PM | Report abuse

haha Yea I agree. The US changed congress to more liberal. Do you know Bush has an approval rating of a new low 24%. So don't blame people about being agasint the war. The last thing we need is another Republican president. For the guy who said Hillary never had any accomplishments I think you better do some research on why she took 67% of the New York vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

KJB:
No matter what your political persuasion, anyone who uses the phrase "Get over it!" in their blog deserves to be sodomized by the defense line of the Chicago Bears.

Posted by: Lucas | January 21, 2007 9:32 PM | Report abuse

It is pretty bad when voting-age adults start reverting to poetry in blank form to open a discussion about how to get America back on track.

Hillary is our best hope for bridging the divide that Bush is taking delight in.

Posted by: Frank | January 21, 2007 8:52 PM | Report abuse

This is my first foray into the wonderful world of blogging. I notice that most bloggers consider other bloggers that do not agree with them idiots, so let me start by saying there sure are a whole lot of idiots out there!!!
First, much to the dismay of the liberal press (98% of ALL news organizations) Bush won....get over it!
Second, most of you war haters were for the war before you were against it. The press has simply constantly bombarded you with negative thoughts since the beginning of the conflict. The enemy knew it would just be a matter of time until the impatient and weak minded American public would be persuaded to reject what even they know is the most important conflict for our future generations. They have sworn victory and will do whatever it takes to prevail. we have sworn victory but will only do what it takes until it becomes inconvenient or messy. Forget the WMD reasons for invasion...that was simply what was given because most of the public simply does not understand or care what is going on long term in the middle east that will affect all of our descedants for generations to come. We can neither afford to lose nor pull out of Iraq. We currently have the largest base in the world right where our military needs it the most in this time of radical muslim extremism...right next door to every probable hot spot so we can respond as needed in a matter of minutes or days, not weeks or months. If we were to pull out of Iraq, we would have to remobilize every time a crises erupted. This is one of the reasons Iran and Syria would so dearly love to see us lose our will and leave the region.
Until 9/11 we lived by snooze alarm diplomacy. We preferred to stay tucked under our covers until something such as the Cole attack or embassy bombings would set off our alarm and we would wake up long enough to respond with small retributions or strong language but then hit the snooze alarm and go back to sleep until the next attack set off the alarm once again. When 9/11 happened we finally turned off the alarm, got out of bed and started actually doing something about it. Now it has been over 5 years and the people are vey tired and want to go back to bed, set the snooze alarm once again and wait for the next crises while dreaming of sunshine and lollipops. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!! IT IS US OR THEM!!!!!!
As for the 2008 elections, there are two reason why republicans will will. One, there are just enough people left with enough sense and a mind of their own to realize that the democrats will NOT protect us from this big bad ugly world...fine on the economy maybe, but not on dealing with the crazies of the world that want us dead...NOW! Two, Guiliani. He probably will not get the nomination, but he will either be the nominations running mate..stealing many liberal votes or run independently with a running mate such as Leiberman. (A formidable ticket that covers the middle ground of both parties) If this ticket does not actually win, and independents have yet to threaten an actual victory, it will steal many more votes from whomever the dems nominate than the rep nomination. So either way Rudy wins for the republicans...thank God and the Nascar fans!!
Hey, this was fun! Obviously I am right!!

Posted by: KJB | January 21, 2007 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Can someone remind me again what makes Hillary Rodham qualified to be President? This is a woman whithout a single significant accomplishment in her entire adult life, yet she's deified as the most brilliant woman in the world. Accomplished attorney? Site any case that she tried that would back that up (hint: there are none, she practiced administrative law before judges appointed by her husband the Governor). Savvy and effective politician? Name one piece of legislation with her name on it. Ask the folks in upstate New York about her promises to create zillions of jobs (hint: it didn't happen). Why they thought she actually could is a completely different matter.

There's a reason why Senators have an abysmal record of being elected to the Presidency: they've never been in charge of anything, can't ever be held accountable for their incompetence, and they're completely unqualified to do anything other that spew self-serving hot air. Hillary fits the mold to a "T".

Posted by: Steve | January 21, 2007 8:01 PM | Report abuse

I urge all Democrats to contact the Washington Post by email and ask why in the world Edwards was not included in the questioning about 2008 general election preferences, when in the Newsweek poll he's the candidate with the BEST showing against both McCain and Giuliani in a hypothetical matchup.

Posted by: Andres | January 21, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

You have our support Hillary! With Obama as VP, it's a sure win!!

Posted by: Irene | January 21, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

You have our support Hillary! With Obama as VP, it's a sure win!!

Posted by: Irene | January 21, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

You have our support Hillary! With Obama as VP, it's a sure win!!

Posted by: Irene | January 21, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

We're FOR YOU, Hillary! With Obama as VP, it's a sure win!!!

Posted by: Irene | January 21, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

We're FOR YOU, Hillary! With Obama as VP, it's a sure win!!!

Posted by: Irene | January 21, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

We're FOR YOU, Hillary! With Obama as VP, it's a sure win!!!

Posted by: Nona | January 21, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

We're FOR YOU, Hillary! With Obama as VP, it's a sure win!!!

Posted by: Nona | January 21, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

We're FOR YOU, Hillary! With Obama as VP, it's a sure win!!!

Posted by: Nona | January 21, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

I am suspicious why Duncan Hunter figures so low in this poll. Amongst Republicans he figures very high.

Posted by: Henry Dephants | January 21, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm thinking it will probably be Romney and Clinton in the general.


I would normally say it would be McCain or Giuliani but must we forget that McCain was one of the Keating 5, in fact, it could have very easily been called the McCain 5. And Giuliani...well lets just say everything that is not 9/11 related will be a liability for him.

But anywise, I think what this poll says loud and clear--Hillary can not only win the Dem. primary, but she can also win the General.

Posted by: Toby | January 21, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Dweeb-I agree with you that he did a grat job with people on 9-11. I think hes a good guy but I just don't think the party will nominate him. Politics are so tricky and sneaky. There is so much stuff that we dont know about that will never be told. I'm totally with you on how good of a job he did with 9-11. The two parties fight like cats and dogs in the Senate. I just think things will switch around and the next president will be a democrat.
Lonewoolf56...I'm not to sure why John McCain would be against bush in 2000 and then back him up as much as he can. Because of this I think thats the reason he will sink in 2008.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

>>>>> Do you know that if it wasn't for 9/11 he wouldn't be as popular?<<<<<<

Oh, I believe you are absolutely right about that. I don't dispute that at all. My point is, his mettle has been tested, and passed. 9-1-1 happened. We cannot change that. But the fact that Guiliani handled it and led us through it cannot be ignored.

In an even up, 3 and 3, I don't disagree with you there either. I believe you're absolutely right. Senator over mayor. And my position would be that neither of them would be qualified.

But you cannot ignore the fact that he led through 9-1-1 and was successful. Yes, he has some positions some won't agree with, some that others like. And he is a successful leader under pressure.

What's not to like about him? I like Obama and admire him and respect his class and demeanor. I believe a race between these two would be pretty exciting.

Posted by: dweeb | January 21, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

McCain's a good guy, but he's just placed all his political chips on Bush's latest dopey chess move in Iraq. I find it ironic that a man who battled Bush so hard in 2000 is now probably going to sink with him in 2007.

Posted by: Lonewolf56 | January 21, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Dick Morris who is totally Republican also said Its going to be hard for Rudy to win the nomination. He thinks John McCain will get it for the Republican party.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I am not a rabid right-wing Giuliani saboteur, but as a moderate Dem, I do have some concerns about him. Here is one.

Remember when 9/11 happened and the Bush administration's first thought was to tweak it to go after Saddam? Most of us now agree that this reaction to 9/11 was dishonorable and harmful.

Well, very soon after 9/11 I heard some "floater" ideas about Rudy and the presidency running around the Internet and radio. My immediate thought was "what a poseur" and "can't believe he's trying to take advantage of a tragedy to further his personal political ambitions."

Giuliani will have to work hard to erase this unappealing image from my mind: Someone who would interpret a violent tragedy as a lucky break to the Oval Office.

Posted by: Golgi | January 21, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

The Republican party has left and will leave with such a bad taste. Your more likely to see a Democratic president it 2008. It seems to me that your not Independent nor Democrat. What good things do you have to say about the Democratic party Dweeb?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Let me give you an example of how the right is already setting out to sabotage Giuliani. After Giuliani's election strategy papers were exposed, they had a debate on CNN about it between a Democratic and Republican strategist (can't remember her name, but she's always on Hannity & Colmes). The Republican strategist immediately stated, "Giuliani has too much baggage, there's no way he can win."
The CNN moderator and Democratic strategist's jaws dropped. Debate over and they went straight to commercial. I've never seen anything like it.

Posted by: Lonewolf777 | January 21, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

If you like Schwarzenegger you'll notice he is using Hillary Clintons heathcare plan. And your George Bush that you think won two times around is false. It was a stolen election. Al Gore beat him by more then 500,000 votes. Your going to see John McCain win the republication not Rudy. I like Rudy as a guy but soon your going to find out a lot of stuff about him that you didn't know.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Dweeb-If the mayor of the most powerful city in the United States(Washington DC) ran for President he would most likey lose. Do you know that if it wasn't for 9/11 he wouldn't be as popular? Yes, your right there are many independent voters. If your from New York then you should be able to list the things that Hillary Clinton did for the city and the state. Say your a mayor for 3 years going up against a senator thats been in for 3 years. The person more likely to win would be a senator not a mayor.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Great. Lonewolf777 might not mean to be doing this, but s/he is setting it up so that any Dem who isn't excited about Giuliani is really a far-right winger in disguise. Can you believe it?

So far this has been true for any Dem who is unexcited about
-Democratic candidate John Edwards
-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton
-Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani

You are still allowed to be unexcited about
-Democratic candidate Barack Obama
-Democratic candidate Bill Richardson
-Any other Democratic candidate
-Any Republican candidate except Giuliani
and not be called a rabid right-winger.

Every mention of sabotage, "we know who you really are", etc is starting to be a giant turnoff on this blog.

Hey Bill Richardson -- a tip -- send supporters with angry kneejerk paranoid tendencies to someone else's campaign before they get started polluting yours...

Good luck to all, may the best candidate win!

Posted by: Golgi | January 21, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Great. Lonewolf777 might not mean to be doing this, but s/he is setting it up so that any Dem who isn't excited about Giuliani is really a far-right winger in disguise. Can you believe it?

So far this has been true for any Dem who is unexcited about
-Democratic candidate John Edwards
-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton
-Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani

You are still allowed to be unexcited about
-Democratic candidate Barack Obama
-Democratic candidate Bill Richardson
-Any other Democratic candidate
-Any Republican candidate except Giuliani
and not be called a rabid right-winger.

Every mention of sabotage, "we know who you really are", etc is starting to be a giant turnoff on this blog.

Hey Bill Richardson -- a tip -- send supporters with angry kneejerk paranoid tendencies to someone else's campaign before they get started polluting yours...

Good luck to all, may the best candidate win!

Posted by: Golgi | January 21, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

RE: "Giuliani will not win. If he was a democrat then sure he would win. Republicans don't want someone with strong liberal views as their leader. Its just the way the game is played."

Schwarzenegger is just as "liberal" as Giuliani, is a Republican and now leads the most populous state in the Union. Bush got elected twice for two reasons: Katherine Harris and 9/11. Both are history and the Republicans are now left with a party that is still spritually led by people like James Dobson. The rest of the country is sick of it and starting to open their eyes.

Posted by: Lonewolf777 | January 21, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Not sure if he would win as President but he would win the votes from a lot of people.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama with 3 years as a senator is better qualified than the mayor of one of the nations most important cities who led through 911? I don't agree at all. I'm sorry.

I believe it would be a wonderful race - but by measurements, Obama as a Senator of 3 years isn't anywhere near as qualified than Guiliani. I completely disagree. Exciting race it would be though.

As far as Guiliani being "too liberal" - we obviously have a growing number of individuals in this nation who do not feel they are either "conservative" or "liberal" only. They don't classify themselves as "democrat" or "republican."

The extremists are on both sides:

Right: They believe life begins when you agree with them
Left: Life begins whenever they want to define.

Right: No tolerance for alternative lifestyles
Left: No tolerance for religious beliefs

Right: No tolerance for sex education
Left: No tolerance for teaching abstinence

Right: No tolerance for widening social programs
Left: No tolerance for conveying individual responsibility

Right: No tolerance for taxes
Left: No tolerance for spending cuts

Right: No tolerance for any form of gun control
Left: No tolerance for any type of gun ownership

Right: No tolerance for government intrusion
Left: No tolerance of individual freedoms trumping government

Right: No tolerance for "reproductive rights"
Left: No tolerance for "abortion restrictions"

Right: No tolerance for public health care
Left: No tolerance for privatized social security

Right: No tolerance for trying to fix the public schools
Left: No tolerance for school vouchers or competition for public schools

On and on it goes. One extreme to the other. Most Americans aren't in either of these categories. We're centrists. There is a middle ground on all of these issues.

And someone who would represent a "reasonable" position on all would be someone who would appeal to a majority. Do you not feel Guiliani could win a nomination on the R side while appealing to a majority of the centrists in the nation?

Posted by: dweeb | January 21, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani will not win. If he was a democrat then sure he would win. Republicans don't want someone with strong liberal views as their leader. Its just the way the game is played.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani will win if the far-right doesn't sabotage him. Unlike the bozo in the White House, Giuliani is a man of intelligence and a genuine uniter. Furthermore, a lot of mainstream Democrats will jump ship to vote for him. And I'm one of them.

Posted by: Lonewolf777 | January 21, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Its been 12 years since Congress has been Democrat, and its been 6 years so far of Republican George Bush. The US has went down hard the last 5 years(under Republicans) Congress changed this year because the US was heading down the wrong path.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Dweb im not sure where you get your information from but Rudy was just a mayor. Thats it. A senator is in better position then a mayor. Its not the other way around; therefore Obama has more experience. Rudy did a great job keeping people calm for 9/11 but so did Bush. Like I said before New Yorkers are pushing for Clinton more then Rudy because she got more done then he did.
Alan I agree with you somewhat. I see Richardson being the vice president. He has a lot of experience but not enough money and power as the Clintons. I see Hillary picking Richardson as VP. He can sway the Haspanic vote to the Dems. The black will most likely vote for her and single women will as well.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Guiliani belongs in the liberal-leftist Democrat party. That a man with his political-cultural views and the corruption of his private life leads the Republican polls at this time is a sad commentary on the Republican party. The liberal-left has led in the destroying of the United States from the inside and the neo-conservative and establishment Republicans have been too quick to get involved in foreign wars. Unless a Republican candidate surfaces with moral values in his policy and private life and concentrates on rebuilding basic responsibility
in the various facets of our economic, social/cultural, and national idenity, I will either look toward a conservative third party or skip the presidential line in the 2008 election. Unfortunately, I think our country may have already gone too far down the road of a deteriorating nation.

Posted by: Raymond V. Banner | January 21, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Brian Schweizter, himself says that those who speculate about a presidential candidacy for him have been "smoking too many pinecones."

It remains to be seen if a Governor from a small backwater state as we are (and most of us like it that way) will rise in national politics after he's termlimited for governor in 2012. Democrats will hold the two Montana Senate seats, Tester will be up for his first reelection. Schweitzer could strike out for congress by taking on GOP at-large represenative Rehberg. Or a Democratic President could appoint him to a administrative position. Interior or Engergy appear to be the ones that usually go to Westerners.

I see Bill Richardson is finally declared for president. Just he and Vilsak are governors. Everybody we've elected to the presidentcy since Carter, except Bush Sr., has come from a governorship. Maybe this means we'll finally elect a president who can work with congress. Neither Carter, nor GW Bush worked well with congress, even with their own party in power.
Richarson, of course, has experience in Congress and a presidential administration. But remember that Bush sr. had a great "resume'" too, and look what happened with that administration.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | January 21, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I disagree. I don't think he was just a mayor. He led the nation's most notable city through one of the most horrendous acts of violence in contemporary history. He coordinated with national, state and local resources to lead, heal and recover. This isn't something that was "just a mayor."

In terms of qualifications, Obama then, by those standards, is far less qualified than Guiliani. He's only been a senator for 2 years. (Or 3 now?) It seems that measurement is backward.

And a Jordan and Kobe? Who would you content would be your Jordan and Kobe picks?

It seems the public is trending toward new - not Washington re-treads.

Posted by: dweeb | January 21, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Chuck:

Very astute - nice research. I always assumed that my distaste for Kerry's coldness was something that was unique to me.

Kerry shouldn't waste his time because he's demonstrated he isn't qualified. RE: His "botched" joke.

Not only did it not seem to be a "botched" joke, he went way off script to try to pull off that "botched" joke.

I don't know about anyone else, but a man seeking to lead a nation that can't be measured, thoughtful and more nimble in his mind before he goes off script and "botches" a joke that insults our armed forces isn't someone I want sitting in a meeting with interpreters speaking to Kim Jong-il or with Ahmadinejad.

Posted by: dweeb | January 21, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Guiliani is too liberal for his party. I like him too but he won't get the nomination. I understand hes very likeable but he lacks experience and is not that conservative. He was just a mayor. Even Obama has more experience than Rudy but its still not enough to control America. You have to understand we need someone with the most experience. Would you put two college students on your basketball team or would you put Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant on your team? The experience and the brains is what matters when looking for someone to rule America.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Note that Newt has a higher poll among Republicans than Kerry has among Democrats.
Right now a Clinton-Obama ticket (59%)is nearly as popular in its own party as a Guilliani-McCain (61%).
I also cannot imagine pair of tickets that would be more high contrast on television.
A baby boomer woman and an attractive, young black man contrasted with 2 balding and not so attractive older males.
The Republicans had better remember that we have superficial nation. Note that horse faced,never smile Kennedy clone Kerry now trails his very smiling and attractive running mate,Edwards. I always thought that ticket was upside down and that the further left into the bell curve the Democrats went to get Democrat leaning voters, the less they would like Kerry per se. It's not a co-incidence that a much more experienced and intelligent but troll-like Nixon lost to the poster child of the Ivy league preppy. People still think Kennedy was intelligent, but his class record at Choat shows a 112 IQ, hardly the stuff of the "best&brightest" and a good reason his Pulitzer prize winning book, Profiles In Courage, was ghost written for him. Remember, the difference between DC and Hollywood, both highly interested in politics, is that Hollywood has dumb pretty politicos and DC has bright, ugly politicians.
Based on looks, I would put Romney on the ticket with Guilliani. Note Newt lost 3 points after Romney got visual media coverage (he gained 4 from 5 to 9)

Posted by: Chuck Littleton | January 21, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty hard to take this survey seriously without the gender crosstabs.

Posted by: Fred | January 21, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Why could Guiliani not obtain the nomination? Like it as not, both parties have extremists among them.

If Guiliani more represents a majority of the "centrists" in the R party, and the rest of the country, why would he not stand a chance to receive this nomination?

Posted by: dweeb | January 21, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Fred, Giuliani is a great guy but his party won't give him the nomination. He's too liberal for the party. It will be too hard for him to win the nomination. The world of politics is just a big game they play. Its a matter of who can master the game.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

While it would be thrilling to see Obama, he needs to start to flesh out his ideas also. It would seem the country is seeking fresh, clean and new.

All have detractors - and I'm sure it will become much worse. I'm not sure that Obama could beat Guiliani, but my guess is that the campaign would be a campaign of gentlemen.

Would it be possible to see people actually become excited about such a race? Not turned off by the absolute negative ugliness that has become so pervasive?

They both seem to be gentlemen, outspoken in their thoughts, but with a sense of class and humor that would be a definite breath of fresh air.

I admired that about Edwards in the last campaign. He almost seemed repelled about "negative" campaigning. I respect him for that. I may not agree with all of his positions, but I respected him for his class and dignity he held on to during the campaign. Anyone who retains these traits during a national campaign should be congratulated and held up as an example, regardless of party affiliation.

We are definitely short of class and dignity in politics these days.

Posted by: dweeb | January 21, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani has innerstrenght to be creative and strong. He continues to grow in strenght and brains and independence. Ms. Clinton is a manipulator. Good example is that she showed such anger and deep sadness about their marriage when Bill had his little Moniqua affair in the White House. He had been doing this hundred fold when Governor of Arkansas. Hillary then could not care less. I wonder why.

Posted by: Fred | January 21, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I also wanted to add that the plan Hillary Clinton made for health care is being used by Arnold in Cali.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Bush is in this for the oil. Hes made millions.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse


'The Saudis have enough reserve production capacity to swing OPEC prices up and down at will. '

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Guys...the polls are going to change a lot in a matter of time, they aren't going to stay the same. Your in for a lot of surprises.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

'Saudi oil minister Ali Nuaimi publicly opposed Iranian calls for production cuts by the OPEC cartel to halt a decline that has taken crude oil from $78 a barrel in July to just above $50 a barrel last week.'

For all you who sugges that it's a 'conspiracty theory' that oil price can't be manipulated by politics -- get over yourselves. Who is bush in bed with? the saudis.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are much brighter then you give them credit for. If your pulling for Obama you should understand even though they are agasint each other, they are still on the same team. The ticket is two people not just one. So if you like Obama he should hope Hillary is on his ticket. He has not much experience and thats why he won't be the next president. Id like to see him maybe being VP to get the experience that he needs. You have to understand the way the system works. Rudy G. was only a mayor even though the mayor of the largest city. He needs a little more experience as well. Don't forget he wouldn't be popular if it wasn't for 9/11 and even New Yorkers are pulling more for Hillary than him.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

'Executive compensation today isn't the sinful overindulgence of greedy executives that it's made out to be. There may be some abuse among the 7,500 publicly traded corporations in the country, but most of the CEOs who receive those huge pay packages not only earn them but also, yes, deserve them.'

Posted by: look at the corporate drool the wapo publishes | January 21, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

'Remember, she didn't get those horrible polarizing numbers because of the dresses she was wearing'

No, she got them because of the relentless swiftboating that she got from the rightwing echo chamber and the MSM both. She and Bill were skewered by the press relentlessly for 12 years. No matter who the dem nominee is, that will still be the case. All of them wil end up with high negatives, becasue the corporate media prefers a republican as president. More friendly for corporate tax cuts, mergers, lucrative contracts, etc.

In contrast, look how friendly they've been to rudy and his war-profiting and who*ing. Are the fundalmentalists hypocritical enough to still vote for rudy? That's the question.

Posted by: lark | January 21, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Edwards Leads Democrats in Iowa, Obama, Clinton Top NH in Poll

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Former vice presidential candidate and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has a 10 percentage point advantage among Iowa Democrats, according to a new Zogby Poll. The survey also finds pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama leading in New Hampshire with pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton a close second. The Iowa poll has Edwards leading with the support of 27 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers. He has a 10 percentage point lead over his nearest competition.
Obama follows at 17 percent and favorite son, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is also pro-abortion, has the backing of 16 percent.
Surprisingly, Senator Hillary Clinton, the pro-abortion New York lawmaker, is tied with Vilsack at 16 percent and listed below him in the Zogby poll results.
No other potential 2008 presidential candidate receives double digits as pro-abortion Delaware Sen. Joe Biden and former presidential candidate John Kerry have three percentage points each.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich both have one percent each.
Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, Obama, a first-term senator, enjoys support from 23% of Granite State Democrats. Tied close behind are Clinton and Edwards, who each win 19% support.
No one else is even close.
There is a significant drop-off to Kerry at 5 percent, former General Wesley Clark, who has not given any indication he will seek the nomination, has three percent as does Biden.
Kucinich, Richardson and Vilsack only have the support of one percent of New Hampshire Democrats.
The survey of Democrats shows this race is as fluid as the 2004 race for the Democratic nomination was at this point in that election cycle. Eight in 10 said it is likely they will change their minds before they actually cast their ballots in the primary election.
(1/19/2007) - By Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=14256

--------------------------------------------------

Zogby poll puts Obama in the lead in New Hampshire. Obama 23%. Clinton and Edwards, 19%.

Zogby poll puts Obama in the lead in New Hampshire. Obama 23%. Clinton and Edwards, 19%.Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic White House bid is surging in New Hampshire. That's according to a new survey by Zogby International. The freshman senator is at 23 percent support among New Hampshire Democrats to 19 percent each for top rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. On the GOP side, Sen. John McCain of Arizona leads.
Here's the warning label: "The survey of Democrats shows this race is as fluid as the 2004 race for the Democratic nomination was at this point in that election cycle. Eight in 10 said it is likely they will change their minds before they actually cast their ballots in the primary election," the polling report concluded.
Read about the entire poll at http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1237
for an excerpt, click below.
this from Zogby International...
Zogby's latest telephone polling in New Hampshire shows Obama holds slight edge over Clinton and Edwards in tight Dem battle, while Arizona's senior senator leads in what is--at least for now--a two-man GOP race
The newest Democrat to file papers to form a presidential exploratory committee enjoys a narrow lead in the race for the party nomination over two more experienced challengers, with no others anywhere near impressing New Hampshire Democrats, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.
(1/19/2007)
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=14265

Posted by: Warrior | January 21, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

After the scandals of Bill Clinton he walked into the UN and got a standing ovation. Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps because the job he did was great and they have so much respect for him. Most people keep saying Rudy is going to be the nomination for the rep. party but I'm sorry thats just not going to happen. Rudy is a very well liked by Americans because of 9/11. So yes you think he will win but the Rep. party sees him as far to liberal to be in office. Hes pro gun control, gay rights, pro life and many other liberal things. The party is agasint what he is for. So as much as Americans like Rudy, he will not be the nomination for his party. Its going to be John McCain vs Hillary Clinton. With the money, power, name, respect from the world, the Clintons will fix the mess of George Bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is too polarizing, and appears to be a political opportunist. Obama appears to be breath of fresh air, and I hope he is.

Once the campaign gets into gear, you can bet that hillary's spin machine will attempt to "demonize" (Her word) anyone that opposes her...It will likely backfire on her.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clintons approval rating was over 60% and the electoral college was won by him with over 73%.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

You can read Hillary's attempt too explain her vote for Bush's War at...................
............................................
http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues
............................................
It,s unconvincing. In fact, it,s just flat out dishonest. ...........................................
The Bush Ad. rammed thru the Use of Force resolution thru Congress in Oct. 2002, a few weeks before Saddam Hussein agreed to comply with the UN Security Council,s resolution demanding that he re-admit the UN inspectors to Iraq. They returned in late Nov. 2002 and began searching for the WMDs. They continued their search - without let or hindrance of any kind - until they were forced to quit by Bush,s invasion in March, 2003, having found as we all know - no WMDs. At that point, every Democrat - including Hillary - knew full well that they had been cheated, that the WMDs were nothing but a pretext for a war of outright aggression. And it was at that point that she should have denounced the war and repudiaated her vote for it. But she did not. Instead, she waited till late 2005, long after the polls had shown quite clearly that the public had turned against the war, to complain that she had been misled. And even now she does not call for prompt withdrawall. And she announced her opposition to Bush,s escalation only after polls showed the public,s strong opposition. ..................
..........................................
If you expect either Hillary or Giulian to end Bush,s war you,re in for a big disappointment. I,d vote for Dennis Kucinich, the only candidate pledged - unconditionally - to end the Bush/Cheney War, But of course he has no chance. And we all know why. No money.

Posted by: ndpwp | January 21, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

These national polls don't matter. The nominees are decided in Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton and Guiliani run pretty far back in the pack here in Iowa.

All of the national polls had Howard Dean as the frontrunner last time around...he ended up with 18% of the vote on Caucus night.

Posted by: Jack | January 21, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

These national polls don't matter. The nominees are decided in Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton and Guiliani run pretty far back in the pack here in Iowa.

All of the national polls had Howard Dean as the frontrunner last time around...he ended up with 18% of the vote on Caucus night.

Posted by: Jack | January 21, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I agree with those looking critically at the polls inclusive of independents for a general election. I don't know why they include independents for a "candidate selection" in a primary.

Even though it's far too early, analysis and review help to shape and look at the way the opinions shift and mold over time.

Hillary has a problematic situation with a very polarizing approval/disapproval rating. In there lies the "gotcha" for a general election for her. As others note, people like or dislike her, she has some very heavy baggage. There isn't any middle ground. But, an advantage for her, it isn't anything we don't already know.

Guiliani has baggage also. However, also like Hillary, it isn't baggage that we're not already aware of. Who could forget the public press announcement by his wife where his dirty laundry was aired for all to see?

While some would assume Hillary has a "centrist" opinion, her voting record doesn't jibe with a "centrist" category. However, it isn't for her to give up her ideals to please others. If she has changed, then she should be given credit for evolution, also.

Guiliani has certain positions, and those may not necessarily be where all Rs stand. So be it. He should be given credit for his "centrist" position, whether you agree with it or not. It may be that most Americans are where Guiliani stands. Not fitting into a neat little paradigm of "right" or "left."

In a "match up" of baggage and accomplishments, just my opinion, I do not believe that Hillary could beat Guiliani. He's been tested and passed by dealing with some of the most heart wrenching ordeals this country has dealt with. He has an impressive record beyond 911, his crime reduction in New York, etc.

Unfortunately for Hillary, the country already has experience with her in the WH. Her failures with health care, the problems with missing WH files reappearing, etc. Who could forget how the country recoiled at the "two-fer" or "co-presidency" position that was first put forth and quickly abandoned? The polls show, those opinions haven't subsided.

Remember, she didn't get those horrible polarizing numbers because of the dresses she was wearing. She will need to overcome the bad WH experience the country has with her. She's in an unfortunate "gotcha" situation.

There will be an "anti" Hillary vote that will need to be strongly factored - people who will turn out to specifically vote against her, not for someone. This type of voter becomes weighted as an "issue" voter, voters who turn out to vote no matter what because there's an "issue" on the ballot. Her negatives are high enough to weigh as an "issue."

Her stance must be on her success as a senator - and her voting record. If it is worthy, that will be where her strength lies.

While the "wild" popularity election of the Clinton administration is touted - let us not forget, in both elections, less than 50% of the registered voters voted in those elections, and neither time did Clinton pull 50% of those who voted. (Perot) So less than 25% of registered voters actually put the Clinton administration into office. Perception isn't always reality.

As much as I would love to see a female president or vice president, I don't believe Hillary is that person. I would rather wait for a more suitable female candidate who is stellar and new.

Just some incoherent ramblings.

Posted by: dweeb | January 21, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Thats easy Bush list would be 10 times longer!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I would like for those who hate Hillary so much to enumerate, specifically, all of the negatives they have about her. And, I would like to see a similar listing of those who don't like Bush to list their negatives. Question: Which negative list would be longer???

Posted by: IWonder | January 21, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney won't win the Rep nomination...John McCain will. Im just going to vote Dem in 2008

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse


http://www.mittreport.com

This is an AWESOME site about Mitt Romney and him running for President. On this site there is a lot of great information about him all amassed in just one place. I highly recommend taking a look at the site and forwarding it to everyone who may be interested.

Don't forget to BOOKMARK, the site is updated multiple times daily!

Posted by: Mitt Report | January 21, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Its proven that world leaders loved Bill Clinton...World leaders hate George Bush...the world is against us now so I hope Hillary is elected.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Look at what a person said:
Why even pretend we are a democracy anymore? Lets just run Jeb vs Jillary and decalre it the "Return to Aristocracy" election! EXCUSE ME, BUT JEB BUSH IS NOT RUNNING AND HIS NAME IS NOT IN THE POLLS.

So the only person who falls into the pit of Aristocracy is Queen Hillary and all the other Democrats will be ready to kiss her New York toes.

Posted by: Joyce | January 21, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

On Sunday, Biden said despite the competing proposals, there was overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress against the war. He said Vice President Dick Cheney was absolutely wrong in suggesting that a resolution against the war would "embolden our enemy."

"Every single person out there that is of any consequence knows the vice president doesn't know what he's talking about. I can't be more blunt than that," Biden said. "He is yet to be right one single time on Iraq."

Hagel suggested there may be more Republican support than is generally known for seeking a vote in Congress toward ending the war in Iraq.

"It is wrong to put American troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war," he said. "Are we not to register our sense of where we are going in this country?"

"We have anarchy in Iraq," he said. "It's getting worse."

Posted by: cheney is a putz | January 21, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Four U.S. soldiers and a Marine were killed during combat in Anbar province, the Sunni insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad, the military reported Sunday. The five newly reported deaths on Saturday raised that day's toll among American forces to at least 24, the third deadliest single day for U.S. troops since the war began in March 2003.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

This story concerns the outrageous statements by the Bush Administration's deputy assistant secretary of defense Charles "Cully" Stimson, disparaging attorneys who provide pro bono legal representation to detainees at Guantanamo. Last week, the Times and other reports revealed that Mr. Stimson willingly participated in a effort, echoed later by Robert Pollock of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, to expose the names of the attorneys and their private law firms and to insinuate that the attorneys were unprincipled and disloyal by representing "terrorists." The apparent goal of these fine folks was to intimidate these and any other attorneys who might seek to represent the detainees by smearing the attorneys' reputations and encouraging their firms' corporate clients to find other counsel.

Stimson's comments outraged the legal community, which has a long history of encouraging pro bono representation of those otherwise not likely to obtain counsel and a strong commitment to the nation's laws which provide that everyone -- including the most violent criminals -- are entitled to legal representation. For a little history, read Daniel Coquillette's essay on why patriot John Adams defended British troops accused of murdering Americans in 1770. But it's not just our history, it's the law of the land. And we still need to remind the editors of the WSJ and others that many (most?) detainees at Guantanamo are not criminals and were imprisoned on false information, grudges, bribes and hysteria; with their attorneys' help, many have been released to their home countries and freed, after several years languishing at Guantanamo.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse


'Former GOP Congressman Bob Ney was sentenced today to 2 1/2 years in prison for his role in the Jack Abramoff scandal. (The best headline for that story was "Abramoff Republican Sentenced." Abramoff Republicans. I like that. You had Radical Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, and now Abramoff Republicans. Sums up the era, doesn't it?)

In other Abramoff news, an indictment of former Bush Interior official Steven Griles appears imminent. Griles has resigned from the lobbying firm of Lundquist, Nethercutt & Griles LLC and from the Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission. He has also beefed up his legal defense team.

Duke Cunningham briber Mitchell Wade, founder of the now defunct defense contractor MZM, is still singing like a canary. His sentencing will reportedly be delayed for another six months so that his cooperation with the feds can continue. That investigation will continue without the involvement of Carol Lam, we learned this week. The San Diego U.S. Attorney whose office was leading the Cunningham investigation and its various outgrowths was pushed out of office by the Bush Administration for reasons which are still unclear and therefore suspicious.'

Posted by: Abramoff Republicans | January 21, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Sounds perfect meuphys-I personally want to see a Clinton/Obama ticket but I think its going to be a Clinton/Richardson ticket. As long as we change the way America is. Vote whoever gets the Dem nomination...they are all smart and understand what the country is looking for. Support the Democratic party in 2008!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Before his first campaign, who had even ever heard the name of Bill Clinton?
Now consider, who has even ever heard of Chris Dodd?

Posted by: tmurt | January 21, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse


'A staggering 68 percent of Americans are opposed to the surge, according to the latest Newsweek poll.'

D'ya think if those numbers hold, or if the disapproval even goes higher, as nothing changes in Iraq, that any republican has even a shot in '08?'

I don't really think americans want to continue to borrow billions from China in order to sacrifice our kids to help iraqis continue that fight they've been haivng for 1000 years.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

how's this - i am committed to voting for the democratic nominee, no matter who he or she is. having said that, i must add that i hopw and will work to see that that person is Barack Obama. i believe that he could potentially unify the country and raise the tone of the national campaign as could no other candidate in the race. this is going to be fun to watch, if a little nervewracking.

Posted by: meuphys | January 21, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I love Gore. Would be great to see him win again. I will support Clinton or whomever the Dem party nominates. They are all far superior, morally and intellectually, than anything the R party has to offer -- which amounts only to war junkies, serial adulterers and lunatic theocrats. No thank you. Things are bad enough already. I do like this guy a lot, though. Wish he'd run:

'• Governor: Without energy independence, U.S. will fight wars in Mideast
• Montana's Gov. Schweitzer against embedding troops in Iraqi army
• Schweitzer: Energy independence would mean hundreds of thousands of jobs
• With it, "You'll never have to send children .. to war in the Middle East again"
Adjust font size:


HELENA, Montana (AP) -- Montana's Democratic governor says President Bush is wrong on Iraq and has failed to recognize the importance of energy independence.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who learned Arabic while building irrigation projects in the Middle East for six years, said political solutions are needed in the region.

"Mr. President, there are animosities between Sunni and Shiite people in the Middle East that have developed over centuries," Schweitzer said Saturday in the Democrats' weekly radio address. "Outsiders cannot resolve this conflict unless the Iraqi people want security and freedom at least as much as us."

The governor urged the Bush administration not to embed American troops with the Iraqi army, beside what he called "untested and potentially corrupt members of the Iraqi military."

Schweitzer also argued that American energy independence is the only way to ensure the country doesn't have to continue fighting wars in the Middle East.'

Posted by: drndl | January 21, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Stop saying that your a Democrat and won't vote for Hillary, youd rather vote for John McCain. That guy is all for the war in Iraq. Don't sit at your desk and say your going to vote for McCain. Think about the troops, the family of the troops, and the friends of our troops. These people are getting killed. Were not winning the war in Iraq. More troops now means more dead and its already happening. Would you vote McCain if your child just got killed in Iraq or would you vote agasint the killings like the Dems are. Learn more about John McCain; hes crazy. So yeah, if you want to see more of our American troops dead then vote for someone like John McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

We have had Republicans in office for a long time now. Its time to change things around and see what the Democrats can do. Thanks to George Bush the Republican party has fallen deep, thats why congress now is Democrat. This new congress has already worked hard and will contiue working hard because they are now listening to Americans. Our new congress won't be able to push all the good things that we want under a Republican President. He won't even pass the bill for studends with the cost of college so much. Whoever gets the nomination for the Democrat party please vote for them. Its time for change.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is like White Castle Hamburgers, you either love em or hate em.

The problem will Hillary is that too many people hate her. We need a JFK.

A lot of things can happen in a couple of years.

Posted by: Mark | January 21, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary becomes Prez, in 8 it will be time to get ol Jeb warmed up in the bullpen, and then in 8 more, it's time for Chelsea.

Let's break the cycle of oligarchy. Newt for President.

Posted by: Andrewp111 | January 21, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

When triangulating Clinton trots out her pathetic excuses for supporting Bush's war and championing such nonsense as an amendment banning flag burning (while the Republic goes up in flames), Democrats and Independents in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, et. al. will dispense appropriate justice. As such, the WaPo poll is both deaf and blind.

Posted by: JHall | January 21, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Polls and presidential choices exemplify the worst side of our cherished democratic principles. Candidates are more often than not selected as if we were voting for the "popular student" high school president rather than rigorous executive management recruitment processes which assess academic qualifications (ethics, business practices, public administration, military, world religions, project management, etc) and personalities (eg. conflict handling, stress abilities, integrity, decisionmaking, problems-solving, MENTAL INTELLIGENCE, EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, etc.)

Posted by: www.harrymingail.com | January 21, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

We were all robbed.

Even the Republicans who helped steal the throne were eventually robbed, because, except for the Halliburtons and KBR's the only beneficiaries of another Bush War were the terrorists who blew up the twin towers. Bush's War against Saddam saved their hides, and gave them 150,000 American soldiers for target practice, right in their own back yard. Now they're getting another 20,000, just so W can be "the man."

And the Republican party certainly hasn't benefitted from this latest Bush War, they lost power in both houses because of it, so REALLY, "Qui Bono?"

Except for the no-bid corporate book-cookers and energy industry magnates connected to Cheney, everyone is a victim of this war.

Posted by: JEP | January 21, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Wow! What a surprise! Hillary and Rudy win the name recognition polls. WaPo, wake me when you actually start to compare the candidates platforms, positions and policies. My guess is that will be one day after the first televised debate, unless you decide to talk about delivery style instead of substance.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | January 21, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

The person who said Al Gore was robbed is 100% correct.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I think most of the people under estimate Hillary Clinton. Stop saying your not going to vote for a person until you find out more about what they intend to do. Its too early for any of this. Hillary voted for the war in the begining because the President lied about weapons of mass destruction. I think most of America thought if our president says the bad guys have weapons to kill us we need to go to war with them...however he lied about weapons and the only thing Bill Clinton lied about was a sexual relationship. Hm what one is worse? He made the mistake of bsing about it...He should have either said its no ones business about his sexual life or just told the truth. We need to find Osama. Osama is the number one thing that people want. The second is the economy. Do you remember the economy under Bill Clinton? Yeah, me too. It was great. 9 million jobs were created under the Regan plan, 3 million in the Bush plan, and 18 million under Clinton. Hillary got the job done in New York. Why do you think she won nearly 70% of the vote. Her first time running in New York she barely won. She must have made a difference.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Lets don't forget:
-Al Gore did not lost his campaign, he was robbed by Bush.
-Al Gore was against the Iraq from the very beginning.
-Al Gore has the best enviromental records.
-Al Gore was the one assisted the Clinton adm. to success.
-Al Gore is as clean as a whisle. He was screened thoroughly in 2004.
-Al Gore is from TN. Dem need the south to win the presidency.
-Al Gore has a model family that all the american admire.
-Al Gore has all the experience needed for a American president, particularly unde the curren situation.
Let draft Al Gore.

Posted by: john Y. Cheng | January 21, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

What should be of paramount importance to the electorate is which candidate holds and demonstrates the greatest respect for our Constitution. Our current president has absolutely none.

Frankly, I find the offers from the two parties who are promoted by all of the mainstream media to be disgusting in one way or another. Particularly disturbing is that Murdoch supports and promotes Hillary and Rusddy is clearly corrupt.

No contender has greater respect for our Constitution and our Rights and Liberty than Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.

And with saying that, I would be surprised if my comment ever makes it into this post.

Posted by: Dave | January 21, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

who is Mike Gravel?

Posted by: B Raefsky | January 21, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

who is Mike Gravel?

Posted by: B Raefsky | January 21, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I think the only one with the crystal ball is Hillary Clinton. She also has tarot cards and Ouija boards...

Posted by: Bob | January 21, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

John;
Let me riterate an earlier post: our first President George had the same name as the despot king who we fought our revolution against, and it didn't seem to diminish the citizens' adoration for Mr. Washington.

People in general just aren't as stupid as some of our posters. Putting the words obama and osama on the same page for the purpose of trashing Barrack is just "B.S." Literally and figuratively.

Posted by: JEP | January 21, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

So Hillary has the money to buy the highest office. Anyone want to think about what that means in a supposed democracy?

Posted by: Donna | January 21, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Giuliani or MacCain will win big over either Clinton or Osama, oops, I mean Obama.

Posted by: John | January 21, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

With the long history of getting trashed unmercifully by the msm, primarily for Bill's indiscretions, I really don't think the "schizo lib-con media" can throw much more at ther than it already has.

My own gut feeling is that, after the primaries sort out what these early polls can only pretend to predict, we may just see one of three possible tickets;

Least-likely to happen but represents the biggest change; Clinton/Obama, there's the world-shaker ticket that breaks all the old gender/racial barriers in one election. But just that fact makes it very unlikely, no matter how much us idealists might want to see it happen.

The second likeliest team to come from the primaries is just as "Otto" suggested in an earlier post, that Clinton/Vilsack is a strategic union of qualified players that has more legs than most are giving it credit for.

But the likeliest scenario, the one that keeps peeking at us through the pundits' and pollsters' manipulated message, is that Edwards will begin to show support that is much more universal and diverse than any of the others, and then either Obama and Hillary will be jockeyed into the VP slot by their negotiators, which would be historic in its own right.

I would be proud to support any of the Democrats on the A list, but I think Edwards/Obama could be one of the best leadership teams in history.

And, unfortunately for Hillary, while the MSM might not find anyhting new to throw at her, they still have lots of 'caca in their old "get Bill" bag, that will be rehashed and tossed-out over and over again, through the course of the election.

If you thought the "Call Me, Harold" ad was bad, wait until these moral-morons get a shot at Hillary, it could be one of the most divisive and destructive political seasons we have ever suffered.

While I would defend her more as a victim than a player in the whole mess, Hillary is still going to face one of the rockiest political roads the MSM can build, (just think Hillary-Fox News, Hillary-Fox News, and you will start to understand the impending trashfest) and still she'll raise and spend a half billion dollars to throw at them.

With the kind of obstacles and scrutiny she will have to face at the hands of Fox, Clear Channel and Sinclair, Hillary's popularity with the rank and file voters will be strained, she may very well be seeing her highest numbers in these polls right now.

Also, there are just too many Republicans who seem to be licking their chops to see one of their pit-bulls up against Hillary, she still polls below Edwards in terms of face-to-face matchups against Rudy Giulliani or John McCain.

But, speaking of Republicans, I still think Brownback's going to take the nomination by the time the convention rolls around.

Think about it; without their social conservatives on board, the Republicans are a virtual political non-entity, their ranks diminish precipitously when you take the social conservatives ut of their club.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, those social conservatives have no intention of supporting "moderates" like Rudy or McCain.

And since the social conservatives make up such a large part of the R's base, these polls from the east coast just don't reflect the realities of the Republican Party across the entire nation.

This division in the Republican party is much more graphic than with the Democrats, and may prove catastrophic for the R's as a party, because the social conservatives really believe their souls are at stake if they vote for a "moderate."

Wonder where they got that idea?


Posted by: JEP | January 21, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Where the hell are ya all purchasing your "crystal balls" at....I want one too.

Posted by: Shadow Dancer | January 21, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Joe Libermann had similar lead in 2003. So that should tell something about Rudi and possibly about Hillary's nationwide lead.

Posted by: Joe | January 21, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

To the person who stated in the comment that Algore won once and could win again, excuse, but if Algore had won his home state of Tennessee, he would have won the presidency, have you ever heard of electoral votes, count them up. Don't you also love the media, they really have not one clue. Senator Rodham doesn't have a chance.

Posted by: terri | January 21, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Time for another U.S. election. Let the calumny and mud slinging begin...

Posted by: Dawang | January 21, 2007 8:25 AM | Report abuse

My favorite Hillary is now in and I think she will be the next POTUS. The usual nay sayers are out in force, as expected, and I will be looking for something new for them to say bad about her.

Posted by: lylepink | January 21, 2007 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton may win the Democratic nomination to run in 2008, but she won't fare too well in the national $ell-ecktion process. She carries a lot of negative political baggage, and people are getting suspicious of the Clinton/Bush dynasty. I'd think that the ruling class would have more imagination and insight.

Posted by: Guy Fox | January 21, 2007 7:49 AM | Report abuse

How sad that almost all of the comments and discussion is on "who can win".
I am biased as I favor ron paul (and I am not a republican). Consider that he was asking some very critical questions before we even got into iraq. Despite democratic opposition to the war what did they do? Ron Paul voted against continued defense funding for 2007. Web searches will find very few position papers stating the canidates views in a clear and reasoned manner, Ron Paul writes one every week and speaks in clear and unambiguous style. and his primary concerns are that federal debt will destroy us all, and that the constitution needs real respect to protect all individuals. Looking at the front runners as if this is a horse race will only show us a horse's ass.

Posted by: dougngeorgia | January 21, 2007 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Where were all the Dems accusing Rudy G. of immorality when Clinton was president and Monica on her knees?

Posted by: Joseph Gauzza | January 21, 2007 7:09 AM | Report abuse

Giuliani has skeletons in closet,McCain is pro-war and is from Goldwater's State of Arizona(Of course the leftest press will mention it)
There are no other GOP front runners.
There are more registered Dems than Republicans in the US.
In national elections independents don't really count.
Any Dem can beat those sukkers.
Not happy about it but a Dem gets in.
I would have hoped the Dem was Gore though.

Posted by: sky rocketer | January 21, 2007 6:05 AM | Report abuse

I personally like Bill Clinton.
Since he had a bypass his chances for a heart attack and/or stroke are increased.
If Bill wasn't in the wings would you still vote for Hillary?

Posted by: joachim 2 | January 21, 2007 5:35 AM | Report abuse

I am not a Democrat, but recently, find myself voting mostly Democratic. However, under no circumstances I'll vote for Hilary. Clinton's destroyed Democratic Party and everything important to the ordinary people once and they will do it again.

Posted by: Nak | January 21, 2007 4:00 AM | Report abuse

Hillary will win in a landslide victory in 08 with Obama by her side as her VP.

Republicans lost hard last November, and will lose harder in 08 as America goes liberal and throws out the neocons.

We libs can thank Bush for this.

Posted by: Mark | January 21, 2007 3:46 AM | Report abuse

Traditional big media is in the tank for Hillary. Get ready for a year's worth of glowing profiles without asking her a single serious question (hey, it got her elected to the Senate twice!) In the meantime people around America--the ones that vote--will be moving in droves to Obama. Come primary and caucus time next January, the Old Media will be stunned at what happened when the Smartest Lady Alive is shellacked, just like Dean in 2004.

That is, unless they can manipulate opinion enough in the coming twelve months to keep this from happening. Hillary Care? Never happened. Filegate? Never heard of it. Same goes for Kathleen Willey. Why don''t you see Hillary on Meet the Press or in any--any!--kind of unscripted setting? Because Russert et al. won't have her, or because her people know she'll wilt under even the most basic of scrutiny?

Country's had enough of the feminist that even other feminists concede got where she is solely as a tradeoff for being a doormat for a troglodyte husband. Obama in '08.

Posted by: Jeeves | January 21, 2007 3:34 AM | Report abuse

"Let's elect people that care about the rest of us"?

Oh my.

Also, well done to the person who said they've been Republicans their whole lives but love Hillary and hate Bush and think Clinton was the best president ever. That's interesting, since I'm an illegal immigrant union member lifelong Democrat who acted as a human shield in Iraq and am flying to Cuba for a vigil for Castro tomorrow, but I hate Hillary and will be voting for Mitt Romney.

(See, I can do it too!)

Posted by: Pablo | January 21, 2007 3:26 AM | Report abuse

I feel who ever wins the AARP support will win the Election ,Yes Hillary has done a great job for NEW YORK STATE And the Dollars keep coming in,She must be doing something right.

Posted by: Bob M | January 21, 2007 3:19 AM | Report abuse

These early polls are all about name recognition only. Once the debates and the political season arrive, Romney will shoot up the boards. He is the most conservative of the bunch, and there will be so much anti hillary hate splitting the Democratc base that Romney will be in fine position, regardless if Rudy or Jeb is his running mate.

Posted by: AeroFANatic | January 21, 2007 2:59 AM | Report abuse

Rasmussen's poll seems much more accurate w/ Hillary ahead of Obama by one. Both WP and Rassmusen have Giuliani ahead of McCain by 8. Giuliani, although liberal on certain issues, seems to be the best choice of the pack. He's the only one (besides Mitt Romney) with proven executive competence.

Posted by: ElCapitan88 | January 21, 2007 2:55 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards and Obama are my winning combination. Let's elect people who care about the rest of us!

Posted by: Cynthia A. Putt | January 21, 2007 2:33 AM | Report abuse

Never in America has a presidency been won by a candidate with a non-Anglocized name. Never. Ask Michael Dukakis. Imagine if during a heated campaign with Obama in it that 1) He's Muslim, 2) he studied in a madrassa in Indonesia,3) his middle name is Hussein!, 4) his last-name rhymes with Osama. It would be like if he won, Osama bin-Laden won!

Posted by: Demosthenes | January 21, 2007 2:09 AM | Report abuse

It would be nice if the democrats would come together and get behind somebody. The Democratic party seems so divided no wonder we have not won an election. If the democrats did not spend so much money campaigning to fellow democrats, then they might have some money left over for the real election. I think we have a good chance to win the next election, please don't @!#% it up.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 1:54 AM | Report abuse

We are, all of us in my family, absolutely thrilled for Hillary Clinton and will devote our time and our energy to help her become the next President of the United States of America.

Bravo Hillary.

Posted by: Adam North II | January 21, 2007 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Please let Billery run, she would be the savior of the republican Party,If anyone thinks the south, Fl. texas, or for that fact, any part of Center America would vote for Obama or Billery, they are going to learn the hard way.

Posted by: Lee | January 21, 2007 1:13 AM | Report abuse

It's a shame that Giuliani, a man with affairs has the be the frontrunner for the GOP primary. It's sad to see him dress in drag with Donald Trump. This is the kind of candidate who wants to run for president? Give me a break.

Posted by: Conservative against Giuliani | January 21, 2007 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Well- first of all, we must keep in mind that it is VERY early to really say anything. The polls are not only potentially skewed, but they're unreliable material to go on because it's much too early to tell. I worry about Obama's experience. I think they'll really beat him up on that. I think if he stayed in the Senate a few more years, he'd be an excellent candidate. I don't think Al Gore will run. In fact, I'd love to see him as a Secretary of State or a UN Embassador. It's were he belongs: international politics. I'm not impressed with Edwards so much. I think that he's more running mate material, but I wouldn't really choose him this round if it came to that. Though, it wouldn't be a diaster by any means. Hillary. What can we say? Everyone's got something to say about Hillary. The thing is, love her or hate her, most people made that decision a long time ago. The numbers haven't changed in years and she is still more loved than hated. We all know she's intelligent and she can do the job. We've got to give her credit for the fact that she can raise more money than just about anyone and that will probably play a big role in this election. But the real question is: Are we ready for a woman? I have been for years, I hope that if Hillary gets the nomination that the rest of the country is ready, too. It will be an interesting race. But we must not get too concerned with such early national polls. It will be a stressful race but keep in mind: ANYONE is better than Bush.

Posted by: Rachel | January 21, 2007 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Well- first of all, we must keep in mind that it is VERY early to really say anything. The polls are not only potentially skewed, but they're unreliable material to go on because it's much too early to tell. I worry about Obama's experience. I think they'll really beat him up on that. I think if he stayed in the Senate a few more years, he'd be an excellent candidate. I don't think Al Gore will run. In fact, I'd love to see him as a Secretary of State or a UN Embassador. It's were he belongs: international politics. I'm not impressed with Edwards so much. I think that he's more running mate material, but I wouldn't really choose him this round if it came to that. Though, it wouldn't be a diaster by any means. Hillary. What can we say? Everyone's got something to say about Hillary. The thing is, love her or hate her, most people made that decision a long time ago. The numbers haven't changed in years and she is still more loved than hated. We all know she's intelligent and she can do the job. We've got to give her credit for the fact that she can raise more money than just about anyone and that will probably play a big role in this election. But the real question is: Are we ready for a woman? I have been for years, I hope that if Hillary gets the nomination that the rest of the country is ready, too. It will be an interesting race. But we must not get too concerned with such early national polls. It will be a stressful race but keep in mind: ANYONE is better than Bush.

Posted by: Rach | January 21, 2007 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Well- first of all, we must keep in mind that it is VERY early to really say anything. The polls are not only potentially skewed, but they're unreliable material to go on because it's much too early to tell. I worry about Obama's experience. I think they'll really beat him up on that. I think if he stayed in the Senate a few more years, he'd be an excellent candidate. I don't think Al Gore will run. In fact, I'd love to see him as a Secretary of State or a UN Embassador. It's were he belongs: international politics. I'm not impressed with Edwards so much. I think that he's more running mate material, but I wouldn't really choose him this round if it came to that. Though, it wouldn't be a diaster by any means. Hillary. What can we say? Everyone's got something to say about Hillary. The thing is, love her or hate her, most people made that decision a long time ago. The numbers haven't changed in years and she is still more loved than hated. We all know she's intelligent and she can do the job. We've got to give her credit for the fact that she can raise more money than just about anyone and that will probably play a big role in this election. But the real question is: Are we ready for a woman? I have been for years, I hope that if Hillary gets the nomination that the rest of the country is ready, too. It will be an interesting race. But we must not get too concerned with such early national polls. It will be a stressful race but keep in mind: ANYONE is better than Bush.

Posted by: Rach | January 21, 2007 12:45 AM | Report abuse

As a Democrat I think of Hillary as a Liberman in a skirt. Pro-war and more beholden to Israel than the U.S. The Democrats are not looking for an "Iron Maiden" like Thacher.Hillary and Liberman are the only two Democrats supporting the Bush/Clinton/Bush middle east war. Whatever progressive ideas she may have had in the distant past, her plan to win in the general election is to be more conservative yet. We've learned that a Democrat running as a Republican eventually leads to people electing a real Republican. If Hillary's the candidate in November 2007 I won't vote Republican but I will definately not vote for her. I'd rather have McCain for four years and Obama in 2012.

Posted by: districtofcorruption | January 21, 2007 12:19 AM | Report abuse

I vote according to the issues. And here are the issues as I see it.

Hillary - Everything conservative
Obama - Charismatic, stands for, uh, who cares!
Edwards - Health care, unions, doesn't care about the deficit
Gore - Environment, cursed with bad luck

Giuliani - Everything liberal, libertine
McCain - War, sense of humor, can take a lot of abuse
Romney - Hates Jesus
Gingrich - Compassionate fascism
Brownback - The world is 6000 years old

Posted by: Nab | January 21, 2007 12:03 AM | Report abuse

A few observations:

Negative "controversies" seem to help Democrats. An extramarital affair controversy buried Gary Hart's slim chances and an extramarital affair controversy catapulted Bill Clinton's slim chances during simultaneous primaries.

Hillary's numbers historically have dropped dramatically when she opens her mouth. Can't wait to see THOSE debates!

The only candidates in the Republican arena that could really rattle Hillary's cage in a head-to-head won't make it to the finals - and those are Rudy and Newt.

Posted by: John - New York City | January 20, 2007 11:53 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe the people on here who call Hillary a moderate. Have they even LOOKED at her voting record? Can we say Health care?
However, she wouldn't have announced if she didn't think she could win. And just as she has in the past, she will DESTROY anyone who gets in her way. I'm sure she has already dug up all the dirt she needs to destoy the other Democrats.
Even if she can't find any dirt, I'm sure she can find someone to make it up. That combined with the overwelming support she will get from the press, gives her a very good chance inspite of her negatives.

The only hope the Republicans have is to nominate someone with a backbone, who will throw it right back at her instead of "tring to get along"

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

LOL all the Republicans saying bad stuff about the Clintons...look at the current president. Worst President ever George W. Bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

I love how people say she can't win. Shes going to take every state that John Kerry took and needs one more state to win. Hillary Clinton like her or not will be the next president of the United States. When you vote Hillary your voting for the best president this country has ever had, Bill Clinton. Even powerful Republicans say that. The country has been under a Republican president for 8 years. Time for a change; a change for the better. This country has gone to hell. Even the economy was better under Clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 10:59 PM | Report abuse

I don't feel warm and fuzzy about anyone. This race will most likely be won by a democrat and democratic policy scares me to death.
What does the "right" way to address the war mean? This is the problem with all politicians, they make it appear as if they have grand solutions, when they have none.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I can't stand anyone who is pulling for a PARTY. I hope bla bla get's the Dems straight, and bla bla isn't what the Republican's need...UMMMM...Hello...What's the difference what either party needs or doesn't need? I am an American, and I need a President that acts on my behalf. Not His/Her party's behalf. Both party's are completely radical on either end. In the MIDDLE is where the silent majority of us are. I can tell you one question I would have for a candidate. Be it Democrat or Republican. I would ask him/her if they thought the ACLU was good for America. If the answer was yes; They wouldn't get my vote. Simple as that. I don't want a dreamer as President, nor do I want someone who has hope. I want someone who has vision. To have vision, you have to see what it will take to get you where you want to go. When you have hope, you seem more likely to wait around for something to happen. No candidate thus far has shown any vision. Well one has..I don't particularly like him; But Newt Gingrich is the only one that seems to have a plan. He's the only one that has said what he would do; Instead of just saying what this person is doing is wrong. Where are our LEADERS? I can see what's going wrong. Tell me what you are going to do differently. Anyone???

Posted by: Eric | January 20, 2007 10:05 PM | Report abuse

This poll is as suspect as the Post polls showing repubicans were going to win the Maryland governership and senate.I suspect this one is flawed because no mention is made of "undecided" or "unfavorable." Obama and Edwards are still unknown to most people. Of the people who know enough about them to make a decision their favorables are 2 or 3 to 1 in the general population and huge in the democratic electorate. On the other hand everyone has made up their mind about Clinton. There are no "undecideds" she can persuade. At least 50% in the democratic primary population and many more in the general population would not vote for her ever. What this poll shows is that, assuming all democrats know Clinton, 59% of Democrats reject her. Her only shot at the nomination is a crowded field.

Posted by: districtofcorruption | January 20, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

The Hillary-Haters crack me up.

Let's see here: a liberal Northeastern, elitist senator, who nobody outside his state knows and who is a total stiff, runs a campaign where he doesn't even defend himself properly from obviously untrue attacks, comes within 120,000 Ohio votes from defeating a incumbent war-time president in a year favorable to Republicans.

And yet Hillary Clinton who:

Has 100% name recognition and a moderate voting record, not to mention a campaign apparatus filled with the only Democratic operatives who have won any presidential elections, and would be competing for an open presidential seat in a likely year very favorable to Democrats -- can't win?!?

Why don't you guys just go jump back on the Dean bandwagon...

Posted by: Ur | January 20, 2007 9:46 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Justin & Q above. What the hell does a national poll have to do with the state by state nominating process???

How does this give Hillary a "wide lead over her potential Democratic rivals" when the nomination IS NOT DECIDED by a national election???

Give me a break Chris. American Idol could do a phone poll that would give a more accurate picture of the race.

Posted by: Jambon | January 20, 2007 9:24 PM | Report abuse

The WA Post bios on the candidates leaves these out of Obama's bio:

President, Harvard Law Review

Harvard Law School, JD, Magna Cum Laude

Sr. Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School

Civil Rights Lawyer

And where is the narrated LIFE IN PHOTOS for Obama like you did for Hillary?

Posted by: gr | January 20, 2007 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Why would a PRIMARY poll include NON Democrats and NON Republicans .... BECAUSE it increases the results for Clinton and Giuliani ... maybe the Post thinks everyone who read their material is STUPID ??

Posted by: AH2 | January 20, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

While personally, I like both Hillary and Obama, I do not believe the Country is ready for them. They are not winnable. The Republicans have got to be overjoyed with Hillary entering the field, don't you agree?
My humble opinion, and it won't matter because I live on the West Coast and it will be too late to have a voice like last time around where we all wanted our present DNC Chair to be selected, is that Straight Talkin' Joe Biden is the only one who can win this race. I certainly hope others will endorse and back Joe.
Whomever remains at this time next year, I am hopeful that the Democratic Party will solidify their voice and have a candidate whom is not only smart, intelligent, and experienced, but who can actually win. Hillary and Obama, with much regret, cannot and will not.

Posted by: JFinger | January 20, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

As a registered republican, I am happy to say I DID NOT vote for either Bush. With Bush I, we had voodoo economics and with Bush II, we have voodoo war strategies.
As for the upcoming presidential election, Guiliani is riding the coat tails of 911 and McCain is too much of a hothead.
My husband and I will definitely be voting for Hillary and can only hope that Obama becomes her VP running mate. This would give him the opportunity to gain some much needed experience.
Note: My husband works for a large company and the workers, one and all, are rooting for and planning to vote for Hillary.

Posted by: Mary | January 20, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Rudy needs a lot more experience to win. If it wasn't for 9/11 he wouldn't be as popular as he is today. He's also more liberal and his party knows that. John McCain will win for the Republican party and he will face Hillary for the Dems. America is stick of the war in Iraq. Mr. McCain's idea was to add more troops and wants to continue in Iraq. By the way the Clintons are not easy to beat. You wonder why Dick Cheney and Tom Delay think Hillary is going to win, plus George Bush says she will win the Dem. nomination. Each of them also said to Americans don't under estimate Hillary Clinton. Seems a little odd that the most powerful Republicans are saying those words.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I wish the pundits on television would quit annointing this woman queen and realize she is as much disliked on the left as she is on the right.
If anyone bothered to read the blogs (which has many people over 40 and regular people) the hate for her is palatable.
I wish they would quit swooning over this over exposed has been and realize that her getting in the race is nothing short of stomach turning.

Posted by: vwcat | January 20, 2007 8:44 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting to see Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee, creeping up in topics of discussion. A report has his new book steadily gaining favor in GOP circles and the media is starting to seek him out more and more for interviews and his thoughts. What a race that would make: A Democrat from Hope and a Republican governor from Hope. I think he is supposed to make his intentions known in February, too.

Posted by: Tony | January 20, 2007 8:42 PM | Report abuse

The people who are agasint Hillary winning in 2008 are going to be upset. Shes a totally different person now then she was 10 years ago. Even big business owners think she will be good at the job. I know so many negitives about her but look at the negitive things about George Bush. Much more on him than her. Shes also 10 times smarter. Bill Clinton haters must realize the good things he did for the economy. Instead of talking so negitive about Hillary why don't you try to research positive information. The hell with Dems vs Republicans, women vs men, blacks vs white, etc. just try and look at the good qualities that each person in the race can bring. I try to vote for the person I think has more experiece and is smarter. I voted for George Bush last time around and I think I made a mistake. I'm most likely to vote Democrat in 2008, personally I think Hillary Clinton is a very intellegent woman, in fact top of her class when she went to Yale Law. Shes proven she can work with both parties as a senator in New York. Intelligent business man, Donald Trump says Hillary got the job done in New York and can do it anywhere. I think John McCain is a smart man but I'm now against this war in Iraq and it was pretty much his idea for adding more troops. I just hope they all come home safe.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 8:38 PM | Report abuse

If Rudy is not the next President, we will see more problems in this country over the next decade than we have in the past century

Posted by: James | January 20, 2007 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Gotta wonder how the results would have looked if the poll had used something like instant runoff voting and evaluated the results accordingly.

Posted by: Frodo | January 20, 2007 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Where were these polls conducted-New York?

Posted by: TruthProbe | January 20, 2007 8:09 PM | Report abuse

It is very early, but it seems like the GOP has a problem. They need support around McCain, the only possiblity to beat ANY Dem. Giuliani will not make it with the right wingers. I'm surprised McCain hasn't much higher numbers.

Posted by: Richard | January 20, 2007 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Dayna,don't talk about lies,we have had enough of those from this WH AND also indescretions!!!If you were not so blind you could see what is going on with Condi.

Posted by: Granny | January 20, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

in the past republicans have gotten behind the strongest horse but that is almost always a horse, esp. nowadays, that is much more socially conservative that giuliani...the poll probably didnt represent the fairly socially conservati=ve gorup of republican primary voters who will have a large part of determining who their candidate is. i think giuliani's name is still high as a result of name reognition and ignorance about his personal life or the rest of hgis resume, etc. in general.

Posted by: yo | January 20, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Why do you, or anyone else, include anyone getting only 2, 1, or 0 percent (meaning anyone beyond Biden on the Democrat side or anyone beyond Romney/Gingrich on the Republican side) when your sample is so small that one or two people can affect the percentages? All it really says is that they stink, which isn't really news; I want to know how they're doing relative to each other. (Yes, I know it's early!) Consider the Republican sample of 344; by my calculation, all those people with 1 percent probably got 2-4 people calling their name. I think the total national sample should be at least 2,500. (That said, I could conceivably combine the raw data from this poll with that from other polls to create one super-poll... but I don't know how feasible that would be!)

Posted by: Morgan Wick | January 20, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton

Hillary's here...
Hillary's there...
Hillary Clinton's everywhere!

Hail to the Chieftess and her First Mate
May God have mercy on our Ship-of-State
Pray God will give us a cleaned up slate!

Give no more headlines of indiscretions
Give no more words of feigned intentions
Reveal yourself and your predilections!

We're all ears and we're all eyes
Watching and waiting as you spew forth your lies
Believe me, Mrs. Clinton, you're no surprise!

A Poem
by
Dayna Meserve
Naples, FL

HILL NO! SHE'S GOT TO GO! TM

www.hillnoshesgottogo.com

Posted by: Dayna Meserve | January 20, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

'Gore is an environmental nutcase, and he proves it more and more each day. Edwards is a sleazy ambulance chaser posing as a representative of the common man. We wouldn't even be talking about Hillary if she wasn't Slick Willy's wife. Kerry is dead. Obama is new and intruiging -- and the question remains: Can he handle the scrutiny of a presedential race or will the left-leaning press continue to give him a pass?'

spoken like a true R tool..

'an environmental nutcase' = someone who has a clue about what's going on and what we might do about...'

'Slick Willy' -- it's zouk, folks... yet again.

He leaves his fingerprints on all his fake posts.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

If Guiliani wins GOP election he will not get the soc cons. vote. Without it a Republican cannot win. Any Dem who wins the primaries will likely have Vilsack as the vice. This will strenghten the midwest electoral votes and will attract independents to the Dem ticket. As Iowa Gov he did a great job and always had a solid approval rating even as Bush won Iowa. Also as a former Governor he will give strenght to a ticket led by a senator. Bill Richards is the only other viable vice for democrats. Likely ticket Edwards Vilsack or Obama Vilsack. Some do say thah Clinton will not run in the Iowa primary because she wants Vilsack as her vice but I just don't know. He may be able to make her electable nationally.

Posted by: Otto | January 20, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Many years ago Guiliani had a 'little problem ' between his second wife and his mistress. A divorce ensued and when #2 moved out and left minor children in the city owned mayor's house (because to get a divorse she had to leave Gracie Mansion) the mistress moved in. It took a suit by #2 to protect the child, and a judges decision against the mayor to move out the mistress (who is now #3). My comment refers to the title given the 'lady' at the time. We really don't need the 'Gracie Mansion w____ in the White House. And what will Mr. Dobson think?

Posted by: Betty C | January 20, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Many years ago Guiliani had a 'little problem ' between his second wife and his mistress. A divorce ensued and when #2 moved out and left minor children in the city owned mayor's house (because to get a divorse she had to leave Gracie Mansion) the mistress moved in. It took a suit by #2 to protect the child, and a judges decision against the mayor to move out the mistress (who is now #3). My comment refers to the title given the 'lady' at the time. We really don't need the 'Gracie Mansion w____ in the White House. And what will Mr. Dobson think?

Posted by: Betty C | January 20, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you should know better. These national polls dont mean crap, especially since independents are polled too. If you want to find out the frontrunner, poll only Democrats and Republicans likely to vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Also poll Nevada for the Democratic side. In my state of Florida, the legislature has proposed a bill to move up to be the 5th primary. I believe this only pertains to the GOP Primary. Therefore, Florida should be polled for the GOP side. National polls are only useful for the general election. You know this better than me (until I get my B.A. in political science, then we'll see).

Posted by: Justin Perez | January 20, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

It's Hillary. The others are pathetic slobs.

Posted by: candide | January 20, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Well Eileen, the Dems thought they had a winner in Kerry and he turned out to be one of the worst candidates I've ever seen. When he did the "reporting for duty" crap at the Dem convention, I almost fainted.

Posted by: J | January 20, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

As I think about it, I know of no woman in the entire world more qualified for high office than Hillary Clinton. In my view, anyone doubting this is either a fool or a knave, probably both.

Posted by: candide | January 20, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a whiff of scandal about him.

http://www.slate.com/id/2155501/

We'll see

Posted by: J | January 20, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I have been watching Hillary for years and I have a gut feeling that won't go away: She can't win, even with all her money and
Bill Clinton for a husband.
If we Democrats don't nominate a WINNER this time we might just as well throw in the towel.
We're finished.

Posted by: Eileen Barnes | January 20, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The political novice Chris Matthews also thinks that Gore-Obama would be the Democrats strongest ticket. But, what does he know?

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | January 20, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse


For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

The war in Iraq and American democracy

The Bush administration's decision to press ahead with the escalation of the war in Iraq, despite overwhelming public opposition and increasing criticism in Congress, demonstrates the extent to which the executive branch of the US government now functions as an unaccountable force, disregarding the checks and balances of the traditional constitutional structure and ignoring public opinion.

Bush's claims to be fighting a war to establish democracy in Iraq are belied by the fact that his administration is shredding what remains of democratic institutions in the United States and arrogating to itself unprecedented powers to intercept telephone and e-mail communications, authorize torture, spy on political opponents of the war, and arrest and imprison US residents without trial.

The comments of Vice President Cheney on January 14 sum up the anti-democratic posture of this government. He dismissed the significance of the mass antiwar vote in the November congressional elections, telling his interviewer, "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace, "I don't think any president worth his salt can afford to make decisions of this magnitude according to the polls."

In all previous wars waged by American imperialism over past 100-plus years, US administrations have found it necessary to mobilize public opinion behind their military efforts. An elaborate system of political provocations and media scare tactics was developed to generate support for war among the American people.

In the Spanish-American War of 1898, a press campaign against atrocities by the Spanish colonial authorities in Cuba reached its crescendo with the explosion of the battleship USS Maine in Havana harbor, portrayed as an act of war, although it was likely due to mechanical causes.

The Wilson administration paved the way to US entry into World War I

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/iraq-j20.shtml

Posted by: che | January 20, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I personally would like to see Brownback get the Republican nod.

My dog Mickey could kick his ass.

Posted by: J | January 20, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, for the repeat. I tried to stop the first one, because I forgot to sign it.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | January 20, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary announces. I think I just puked in my mouth.

Posted by: G-man | January 20, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

given her unpopularity?? How do you figure she's "unpopular" when she's leading in all the polls and was named Most Admired Woman in America for about 12 of the last 15 years (including 2006). If she's so unpopular - how does she raise all that money - from people who hate her?

Free speech is great - but let's apply logic and facts to opinions. It tends to make our opinions more valid!

Posted by: csh | January 20, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

That's a heckuva of a margin of era from a virtual tie in Rasmussen between Obama and Clinton and the 24 point lead cited here. Hillary shouldn't probably be packing her bags to return to the White House, just yet. Also, I don't think it's a way for Obama to win support for his supporters to refer to Gore as an environmental nut case or Edwards as an ambulance chaser. I think Obama shares his base with both Gore and Edwards supporters, with supporters like you Obama doesn't need enemies.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | January 20, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Rassmussen has been absolutely incredible the last couple of elections. They only missed one Senate race this last time.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/FinalSenateResults.htm

I agree that Hillary shouldn't be picking out the drapes quite yet.

Posted by: J | January 20, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I have to say that this poll is probably flawed. Every other poll out there has clinton at no more than 30%. The support for Clinton currently just seems to be based on name recognition. Remember, Joe Lieberman was leading in 2003 only to lose miserably.

Posted by: s | January 20, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

That's a heckuva a difference between Rasmussen and Post-ABC with Obama and Hillary virtually tied in the former. How about 100% difference as a margin for error. I don't think so, something is wrong about these polls at this stage, so Hillary should not be prepared to move back into the White House, just yet.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse


mjbeernut writes:
environmental nutcase, sleazy ambulance chaser, Slick Willy's wife, left-leaning press. Now is an independent poster. LMAO

Posted by: J | January 20, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"the most electable ticket of Al Gore and Barack Obama"


Reading this made me want to jump out a window.

Posted by: Jonah Wells | January 20, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

check out this Newsweek poll Jan. 17-18th. 1,003 adults

Edwards is the only dem to beat BOTH McCain and Giuliani.

Edwards = Electability (not in the Kerry sense)

Hillary = united republicans behind distasteful candidate

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16712630/site/newsweek/

Posted by: EdwardsLeadsAgaintstGOP | January 20, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

An excellent, regular poll:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Posted by: elleng | January 20, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Gore is an environmental nutcase, and he proves it more and more each day. Edwards is a sleazy ambulance chaser posing as a representative of the common man. We wouldn't even be talking about Hillary if she wasn't Slick Willy's wife. Kerry is dead. Obama is new and intruiging -- and the question remains: Can he handle the scrutiny of a presedential race or will the left-leaning press continue to give him a pass?

Posted by: mjbeernut | January 20, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Problem with Hillary is not her support, it is her negatives. They are higher than anyone in the field. Rasmussen has it much closer anyway and they have a hell of a track record the last couple of elections.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Democratic%20Primaries/DemocraticPrimary.htm

Posted by: J | January 20, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I think the polls reflect that Hillary is a much stronger candidate then the media think. Obama is going to have a tough time beating her. Let's face it, Hillary knows her politics. She has Bill Clinton at her side and is the one candidate who can probably withstand the Republican attack machine.

On the Republican side it is amazing how John McCain is trailing Rudy Guiliani. It really shows that Republicans aren't that excited about his candidacy.

Posted by: Steven | January 20, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

You said "Romney's numbers have inched up", most southern religious conservatives would vote for most anyone over a Mormon, IMHO. Maybe not Hillary, but pretty much everyone else in the field.

Posted by: J | January 20, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the only Democrat with the combination--repeat combination--of money, connections, manpower, smarts, experience, moderate record and broad base of popularity to win a primary and general election. I'm not sure I get all the angst. What are the Repubs going to throw at her that everyone isnt sick of hearing? Has anybody thought that its a strength to be perceived by one extreme and the other as respectively too liberal and too conservative? Is there something wrong with being in the middle, where she has been for a long time? She grew up in a religious conservative house hold in the middle of the country. Is that a liability? She is married to the most popular public figure in America, who also happens to be one of the gretest political strategists? Am I missing something?

Posted by: quality counts | January 20, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

She's not my favorite, but the poll numbers for Hillary are impressive. They slipped for a short period, but they are back up.

I think Gore's numbers are misleading and would most balloon up if he decided to run. Also, I think that the effect of a Gore-Obama ticket would be agglomerative-- since I think that any doubts folks might have about Obama's relative inexperience would be answered by Gore.

I think Hillary is in excellent financial position, but Gore especially with Obama could give her a run for her money.

Its interesting that Romney's numbers have inched up on the Republican side, but I think that McCain's stance on the war might give Giuilani the opening that he needs. Like I mentioned months ago, Giuiliani despite his moderate stance on social issues is perceived as Mr. Authoritarian by Republicans (and they are probably right considering is record on civil liberties), his counterpart on the Democratic side is John Edwards, Mr. Equality-- so don't be surprised if his support balloons up if he wins Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada.

Obama may have the most raw talent of all the politicians running, also I think the totality of his life experience is not nearly as shallow as his detractors make it out to be. My preference for him to run with Gore is not that he could not measure up to the job, but rather that the impact of these two first class intellects-- Gore and Obama-- for the Democrats at the beginning of a paradigm would put us in our best political situation for another generation.

I think the Las Vegas odds makers who have Hillary as a 50-50 chance to become president are insane. Chris Matthews has it at 25 percent which is probably much closer to the mark. I actually think if Gore got in the race his chances would be better than Hillary in the general.

I think Hillary has improved on the War. She is at times not wooden, but I think she would benefit from a hard fought campaign. If she waltzed to the nomination, she would be a much weaker candidate than if she beat a strong opponent like Gore. You can say at this point, I am Waiting for Goredot.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | January 20, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Rudy will be hammered by corruption charges if he even gets close. Just remember his ex "business partner", Bernie Kerik, his multitudes of ex wives and girlfriends, his very messy breakup with wife #1 (or was it #2) while he was actively having an affair with the next eventual wife? There have been many rumors that will be investigated by the competition of serious financial improprieties.

I just can't see a bunch of bible thumpers from Kansas voting for this guy in the primary.

Posted by: zigzagg | January 20, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I hope that all the"yellow dog Dems"" will demand the most electable ticket of Al Gore and Barack Obama. I do not care how much money Hillary can raise, she can not be elected. The "swift boaters" have too many accepted lies to use against her. Al Gore won once and can win again.

Posted by: c.perry | January 20, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

4 years of Bill in the White House with no official responsibilities and unlimited free time ... I don't think DC is ready for that.

Posted by: Billary | January 20, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Why do you media guys insult our intelligence with these stupid national polls? We don't nominate a candidate nationally! I don't care what your national polls say, honestly I could make up poll results off the top of my head and they'd mean more. What matters are the Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina polls. Chris, given that you guys know national polls don't affect the nomination, why do you take them and assign them importance?

Posted by: Q | January 20, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

If the democrats were smart, they would line up behind Obama now. He is the candidate who represents some kind of change from the failing establishent -- and their failing party. This is their only chance to really bring some momentum into the white house. If they don't do it now, it's over for them.

Posted by: Amy in Iowa | January 20, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Reference UGH's post, that is exactly the thesis of my new book, "Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And America's Demise." Just reflect on what a two term Hillary presidency would mean; 7 consecutive presidential terms or 28 years dominated by two families in a nation of 300 million (and 9 terms or 36 years if Bush senior's two terms as Vice President are counted). This is de facto aristocracy.

Sheldon,

Posted by: Sheldon | January 20, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Well to heck with the Dems who want to nominate Hillary. If they want her -- they can have her. If they think yet another Northeastern Liberal Establishment Senator with zero warmth and no passion is going to win a general election -- they deserve her.

41% is staggering given her flaws and recent history of losing Dem nominees. Sure hope Dems wake the heck up and soon. Edwards and Obama are so very attractive. What is wrong with 41% of Dems.

This is Mondale all over again. I could f***ing scream!

Posted by: anyonebuthillary! | January 20, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

why will my democrats again choose a candidate that cannot win the presidency... Hillary; She will not have enough money to win.

Posted by: jerry | January 20, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

What is rather interesting is that Barack Obama's popularity, according to this poll has remained unchanged.

Posted by: Lieb | January 20, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Interesting to note that there is so much interest in the pre-election maneuvering in both parties that a poll showing quite convincingly that almost nothing has changed is actually newsworthy.

Posted by: Shaun Appleby | January 20, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Why even pretend we are a democracy anymore? Lets just run Jeb vs Jillary and decalre it the "Return to Aristocracy" election!

Posted by: Ugh | January 20, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Given Clinton's unpopularity, could it be that one of the main reasons she is doing as well as she is, is because she can raise more money than the rest of the Democratic candidates?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The Giuliani popularity is really very interesting. While most prognosticators believe that he won't make it through the primaries, one can't help but watch his success right now in the polls. Republicans do have a tendancy, regardless of political ideology, to get behind the strongest horse. Very interesting polls. I also think Edwards will be important to watch. As far as I hear, he is well positioned in three of the first four primary/caucus states: Iowa loves him, SC is his home turf, and NV is labor country, which he has cornered as far as issues.

Posted by: Political Junkie | January 20, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company