Half of Americans say they wouldn't vote for Clinton in '08

[swag]

Source: McClatchy

WASHINGTON — More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.

The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.

Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who'd be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders. Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17468.html

[illinoisprogressive]

1. I one of those who will not give my vote to her at all.

[RamboLiberal]

23. So if she's the nominee you're going to throw your vote away

and ensure the SCOTUS will be stacked with wingnuts for probably the rest of most of lot of our lives?

[aquart]

28. Yeah, they will hand us over to the enemy to spite a woman.

Great Americans, they. I'm pretty sure this is the brilliant bunch that voted for Nader because Democrats and Republicans are so alike.

[Le Taz Hot]

31. Woah!

You did NOT just infer that if we won't vote for Hillary it's because she's a woman AND we are bad Americans if we don't vote for that corporate shill! Jesus Christ this place is turning into FR.

[EFerrari]

39. Than count me among the bad Americans.

My mom is 75. She would really like to see a woman in office. We can't even broach this topic because there's no way I can support this candidate.

[AngryOldDem]

85. Count me in, too.

If that gets me drummed out of the Democratic Party...well, I was never much good at walking in lockstep anyway.

She has a way to go with me if she wants my vote.

[Honeycombe8]

153. Why? Just curious. I haven't decided who to support, so I don't have a horse. nt

[aquart]

49. If you don't vote for the Democratic candidate...whoever it is?

Yeah. I do mean that. I have had it up to here with the sanctimonious preaching of the Nader voters who had to have perfect or nothing and look what we got: NOTHING.

And if you are not prepared to support the Democratic candidate, wtf are you doing here?

[Le Taz Hot]

53. For starters, I didn't vote for Nader.

I voted for Gore in 2000 so you're way off base there. And even if I had voted for Nader, it's MY vote and I am entitled to vote for whomever I think is the best candidate. The Democrats have to EARN my vote and they're not going to do it by continuing to fund the war and doing shit like taking impeachment off the table.

That sanctimonious preaching you hear is me and millions of other Americans SCREAMING to get out of this fucking illegal war that Hillary voted for and Kucinich opposed -- from the beginning.

And I am NOT required to support the Democratic candidate. I am not allowed to shill for a third-party candidate, which I have never done and if Skinner wants me off of HIS board, he can do that. YOU don't make that call.

Don't worry, when your precious "electable" Hillary is shoved down our throats, I'll do what I've traditionally done on DU -- I take a break. And when she loses the General (the DLC has such a great history here) I and thousands of others will log back on and say "I told you so" and you guys will blame the election loss on those of us who still believe in TRADITIONAL Democratic principles. And that would be AFTER we've been told that "ideal purists" aren't needed in the Democratic Party.

And one last thing. The most BIGOTED position I can think of is voting for someone just because they have the "correct" genitalia. Katherine Harris has the same genitalia. So does Jean Schmidt.

[slick8790]

70. I understand what you're saying.

I really do. I've posted a bunch of times on here about how Democrats do need to earn our vote. Hillary isn't my first choice for the nominee, in fact, she's my absolute last choice.

In any other situation, I'd agree with you 100%. But I think after 8 years of bush, it's too important of an election to lose. As bad as hillary is, she's not as bad as President Rudy McRomneyson. This is one election we as democrats NEED to win. So as horrible as it is, I will hold my nose and vote for the Dem nominee, even if it is someone i dislike, because the alternative is so much worse.

2010 and 2012 on the other hand....

[ikojo]

109. Oh 2004 was "too important an election to lose" and

lost it was. I am tired of hearing that blather. Go ahead march in lockstep but don't be surprised when the war on Iraq continues and spreads to other parts of the middle east. Hillary is no peace maker. Like the Bush family, the Clintons don't have a dog in that fight. Chelsea is earning a nice sum in the financial district, she's not fighting.

I have a nephew in the army, a niece in the marines and another nephew in the navy.

I HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT.

I don't want them or anyone else to be sent to fight a criminal war based upon lies and supported by what was supposed to be an opposition party.

Leaders lead, dogs follow.

[silverojo]

117. I agree with you

And one last thing. The most BIGOTED position I can think of is voting for someone just because they have the "correct" genitalia. Katherine Harris has the same genitalia. So does Jean Schmidt.

I almost said, "So does Ann Coulter," but then I caught myself in time. :evilgrin:

As for Hillary, the war is just one reason I oppose her. I've seen what Bill Clinton did to the poor, and I don't want another Clinton destroying welfare programs even more.

Any Democrat who doesn't care about poverty has completely lost sight of what the Democratic Party is about.

[johnnytoxic]

138. I'm not sure...

that Jean Schmidt has genitalia.

[damntexdem]

72. Fighting for democracy.

It's such a shame that we have to do this WITHIN the Democratic Party. But there it is. Many of us have pledged not to vote for a candidate who won't end the criminal war in Iraq. If the Party is not up to that, then screw it.

[Tesha]

88. I didn't vote for Nader either, but that doesn't mean I will vote for a...

I didn't vote for Nader either, but that doesn't mean
I will vote for a candidate who seems to oppose much
of what I stand for.

And Hillary clearly opposes much of what I stand for.

Tesha

[pokercat999]

128. Beside it's the democratic "UNDERGROUND" which

implies it's not the "Democratic Mainstream". Maybe you are in the wrong place? I thought "LOCKSTEP" was for the other side.

[Red1]

77. Their All American Corp Shills!!!

[ikojo]

108. I agree...a politician must EARN my vote.l

EARN IT...my vote belongs to NO ONE but ME...got it!

I will not vote for another corporatist in the name of "the most important election of my lifetime." How many "most important elections" must there be before people tire of holding their noses and voting for the lesser of two evils? I voted for Kerry but was not very thrilled about it, I saw the 2004 election as being between two children of excessive privilege and nothing more. Heck both of them were Bonesmen!

Hillary is NO friend of the working person that is for sure.

For those who think her gender makes her a kinder gentler imperialist....I have two words MARGARET THATCHER.

Two friends and I were discussing this very topic last night. OH BTW, we're women and we agree, if Hillary is the nominee then get ready for another Republican president.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

54. thank you for saying that. i have been saying the same thing for months.

remember the rhetoric: AL gore is just BUsh lite? or kerry is just bush lite?

fucking bullshit~

[damntexdem]

73. Neither Gore nor Kerry were treasures; but neither was Bush lite.

And I voted for both. In fact, after voting twice for Bill Clinton, I claimed I voted for Hillary but they kept making Bill president. It has been Clinton's disgusting record in the Senate, particularly regarding Iraq, that has made me swear off her.

I will not vote for just anyone that the Party tries to force down our throats. There have to be standards.

[paulk]

98. her disgusting record in the Senate

earned her a 95% ADA rating. Clinton, despite her IWR vote, has a solid liberal voting record.


I don't understand posts like your's...

[pokercat999]

129. She has a liberal voting record on bills from

a Rethugligan controlled congress! Hell evey Democrat should have a 100% "liberal" voting record. How about; What she is saying about the war? How about health care? How about corporate welfare? Where does her money come from Rupert Murdock? What are her POSITIONS on these and many other "liberal" issues? On actual liberal issues she's far to the right of most democrats I've talked with.

[paulk]

130. she's not far to the right of mainstream Democratic liberal

positions. A 95% ADA voting record means that 95% of the time she has voted with the majority Democratic position.

Her voting record/positions are fairly easy to ascertain. Project Vote Smart is a good place to start, if you're truly interested.

Knowing her actual record would be a good thing, IMHO, instead of repeating the same old tired anti HRC rhetoric. Yes, it will get you many virtual pats on the back and much anonymous public affirmation for your beliefs, but that doesn't necessarily make your beliefs true.

Unless you're more interested in raising the bar every time you learn something that doesn't fit into your preconceptions, which is what you seem to have done with the ADA ratings. The fact remains, however, and however high you want to raise the bar, she has a consistent liberal voting record in the Senate.


ed for sp.

[pokercat999]

131. Gee glad I checked this out as recommended. Have you

looked at it?

Official Title of Legislation:

H J Res 114: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to adopt a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Highlights:

- Authorizes President to use United States Armed Forces against Iraq
Her vote YES

Official Title of Legislation:

S Amdt 4442 to S 2766: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.

Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to adopt an amendment that requires the President to withdraw troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007 and states that some forces shall remain in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and protect U.S. personnel and facilities.
Her vote NO

Official Title of Legislation:

S Amdt 4882 to HR 5631: To protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.

Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to adopt an amendment that prohibits any funding from going to cluster munitions, unless it is clearly specified that such munitions will not be allowed near civilian populations.

Her vote NO.....Jesus Christ ! she wouldn't even vote to limit fucking cluster bombs!
She is an enabler for a outlaw pResident!

[karynnj]

152. Both Gore and Kerry ARE treasures

Both are men of integrity and honor who have served a country and a party that often do not give them the respect they deserve.

I am sick of a media that overlooks flaws of the people they like to "play" with while saying that serious good public servants are "boring".

[silverojo]

116. I'd love to see a woman president

Just not Hillary Clinton. She's a warmongering corporate whore, and just because she has Democratic positions on social issues does not make her any less dangerous.

The Dem voters will be killing our party if they vote for her, because there's no way she'll win the election. Obama, Edwards, ANYBODY but Hillary must win this primary, if there is to be any hope for this party.

[nodehopper]

144. I am one of the people who HATED nader voters in 00 and 04

I was, like, we gotta vote Dem, party line. I still do, because I think at that point throwing away the vote was unjustified.

And I am done with that. I think everything that has happened since the midterm elections has shown me that time has come when the "there is no difference between the parties" argument is true enough that I do not want to vote for Hilary or Obama any more than I want to vote for Giuliani and whoever. If I could vote my conscience--for Kucinich, or Gore, were they to run--I would again decry those who would splinter votes after the primaries. Even Edwards I could deal with. But as someone for whom the two most important issues are the war and universal healthcare? I really don't see the difference between the two parties anymore. The neocons are scarier than your average republicans, but it doesn't look like there are any fundamentalist neocon nominees possible for the next election. And the mainstream Republicans and Democrats? I don't see the difference anymore. The last eight years have marked my change from a passionate activist to a disillusioned about-to-be-non-voter. And the Democrats' repeated lack of a spine and refusing to contest stolen elections had as much to do with it as the election-stealing itself.

[EFerrari]

38. SCOTUS is already stacked. n/t

[leftchick]

48. yeah, like any of the stacked are going anywhere

for the next 15 years at least. :eyes:

[kikiek]

52. 15 years? You do know Justice Stevens is 87 years old don't you?

I don't think he will be there when he is 102.

[leftchick]

55. gee that leaves....

alito, thomas, roberts, scalia, and kennedy. It is still stacked. :eyes:

[kikiek]

57. Kennedy is moderate at least, but getting up there as is Scalia who is in early 70's. Only young

ones are Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. The next 8 years could see many changes in the Supreme Court. It is a major factor in my opinion.

[leftchick]

63. your view of "moderate" is not mine....

Supreme Court Issues 4 Reactionary Rulings

Following two devastating Supreme Court decisions for women's rights in Gonzales v Carhart and Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, the Supreme Court has issued four more reactionary rulings. In every case, the Court has split 5-4, with Bush's appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito siding with Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. "The Bush-stacked Supreme Court, led by Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, is doing exactly what they were appointed to do," Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal said. "They are rolling back the clock on women's rights and promoting a pro-big business, pro-religious right agenda."


http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=10383

[kikiek]

65. He is widely criticized by both sides. Whatever your definition or mine the fact remains

we have a Supreme Court that is very likely to change further. My assertion remains that it is a major factor in the next election.

[damntexdem]

71. Yeah, it IS a shame.

But I won't vote for her either.

[Tesha]

87. Then all that has to happen to avoid anyone "wasting" their vote...

Then all that has to happen to avoid anyone "wasting"
their vote is for the Democratic Party to not bother
nominating a candidate such as Hillary who is practically
guaranteed to lose.

Don't blame it one voters who can't stand her.

Tesha

[denixen]

122. "They have the Power!" Apologies to Dr Dean.

What a sad thing that this my first entry on DU. HRC is the
only "mainstream"democratic candidate I can think of
who could conceivably do more damage to the body politic than
a Republican. Her unique capacity to engender incendiary
hatred amongst "conservatives", opening a wider
divide for the robber barons to march straight up the middle,
while at the same time smothering friend and foe alike with
her patentated courage free, believe nothing, change nothing
blancmange = pure disaster, How to lose fath in the political
process pt 45. It adds up to a another step towards fascism.
Her own campaign reeks of "If your not with us, you're
against us". She is the first democratic candidate that
could keep me away from the ballot box. 

[dysfunctional press]

97. same here. i'll vote for Gore...

and that's about it.

[denixen]

123. Dupe

[William769]

2. You mean half in the poll right?

[swag]

4. I was posting a news story. This is the "LBN" forum. There are strict criteria

for posting here. One is that the original headline remain the subject of the post.

[William769]

6. well then I would ask the same question of the poll.

Thats a big assertion to make considering she is the front runner.

[Raine]

100. No the other half is probably lying

and won't vote for her either.

[davidwparker]

3. Count me in that group. Kucinich put it very well when he said,

A Democratic administration got us into NAFTA. A Democratic administration will get us out.

I will never vote for HRC because I don't want Bill Clinton in the WH again. I cannot separate her from him; therefore, I will pass on her.

You've got to give it up to Kucinich's call to repeal NAFTA/WTO. I wish Edwards would come out so blunt as that.

[bellasgrams]

25. You don't like Bill Clinton?

First of all Dennis doesn't have a chance. He could never pull the Indp. crowd or Rep crowd. You have to have someone more centrist to win. i only wish Bill Clinton could run again. Those were good days. Best President since JFK. With his help Hilary will be great.

[Le Taz Hot]

32. Dennis has a chance

if people would think for themselves and vote for him instead of letting the DLC and MSM decide for them. Yeah, we want Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Dynasties anyone? Not!

[bjobotts]

43. Please just get rid of the "names" and just consider the candidates

Saying " because she's a Clinton or He's a Dennis" etc is putting the candidates in a box. Just consider the candidates and the issues, not the names because we load baggage and prejudice onto the names not the people. Try calling them by a different name and then consider just the issues and what candidates say and do. Get rid of a "Clinton" dynasty or a "Dennis" can't pull the crowd etc. No candidate is perfect and all make mistakes and no single candidate will represent all your concerns to your liking. No matter what, a Democrat is preferable to a Republican in the WH even if it's not the Dem I consider the best for the job. No matter which Dem gets in I will be working to make sure they address the issues I am concerned with and so should you.
All republicans are pretty much the same and are unified (overall) when it comes to what they vote on or support (with few exceptions).

The Democrats however are like having 12 Partys rolled into one. There are about that many factions in the Democratic Party and when it comes to a unified vote or what the many factions will support it can be very unpredictable. It is after all the party of diversity so trying to get the many factions to all agree is extremely difficult. That's why the party candidates will support some of your issues but not all and you must make all the different factions aware of how you feel and how you think they should be voting. Some democrats support NAFTA for example while many others don't. We the people of the Party must show strong opposition to get the ones who do support NAFTA to vote against it. In the Democratic Party this is how things work.
So when you say "Democrats" please understand it always means "some Democrats". That's why it's difficult to come up with an "all around" Democratic candidate because we are so diverse. Just saying...

[Le Taz Hot]

51. Please, do not waste your

time pandering your DLC candidate to me. I know who and what she is and there is no way -- NO WAY that she will ever get my vote. That goes for anyone who ever voted for this war and please, don't give me the spiel. We've all heard it thousands of times and you guys have heard the rebuttal thousands of times -- the one you keep ignoring.

You need to realize something and realize it quick. People on DU are NOT political neophytes. They're well informed and most of us could educate YOU so pull up a chair and learn something.

And there IS an all-around Democrat. His name is Dennis Kucinich who will pull us out of Iraq NOW. Who would rescind Patriot Acts I & II as soon as he gets into office. He will form a Department of Peace (Hillary seems to like to bomb brown people). He is committed to fighting for the American worker and repealing tax breaks for companies that offshore and sell our job to the lowest bidder. Hillary favors NAFTA -- which is what got us into this mess in the first place. No, it's not difficult to come up with an all-around Democrat. His name is Dennis Kucinich and he represents the people and is not beholden to his corporate masters. Any questions? See donor list. Compare and contrast.

[dmallind]

69. So Mr/Ms. Hot shit politically aware...

.....you think that the REAL Democrat is the one sho has not even come close to double digit percent support in meaningful polls .....of Democrats? Speak for the fringe as if it's the whole party much, eh?

Kucinich has absolutely NO chance of getting enough.....yes Democrats to support him, let alone enough of the moderates and independents who will decide the general election. You can piss and moan and whine about DLC and corporatist media all you want but if you're so high and fucking mighty politically knowledgeable you'd have a bit firmer grasp on political reality.

Kucinich has no appeal to moderates, centrists or Blue Dogs. You may WANT a Democratic party that caters to none of the above (in which case you would want the party to be about as relevant as ....well Dennis Kucinish in the presidential race) but that's not what you have, and it's not what will have a chance of winning

While, not being a pathetic clueless dolt who wants another 8 years of neocon misrule so he can feel good about his pure conscience, I would in fact vote for Dennis if he were the Dem candidate (in some strange orange-skied world perhaps), I would be shaking my head at the vain stupidity of running him as a candidate at the time.

[damntexdem]

74. This is the problem with thorough party loyalty:

it keeps one from thinking, from analyzing, from considering any implications other than what will happen at the polls. It causes one to throw away all standards, all positions, all principles, in hopes of winning at the polls.

This is why I constantly note that peace activists should not tie themselves too closely to the Democratic Party. Yes, we may belong (where one can register as a Dem), work for Dem candidates, run ourselves; but we should not tie our peace work to any party. We cannot TRUST our peace work to any party. I argue this in other venues, as well.

We need to end 8 years of neocon misrule -- actually, what's needed is lopping at least a year off that through impeachments, but that won't happen. We DO NOT need to birth even 4 more years of DLC misrule.

[silverojo]

118. I like Kucinich, but I know he'll never win

In terms of candidates who have a chance, Edwards is my choice because he dares to speak up on behalf of the poor who don't have a voice. He realizes he made a mistake voting for this illegal war--and (unlike Hillary) ADMITS that mistake.

When are people going to realize that it's swing voters who determine the outcome of elections? Hillary can't appeal to them because there's too much baggage connected to her.

If Hillary wins the nomination and a Republican gets elected, Dem voters will only have themselves to blame for not wising up to the fact that this woman is just too universally disliked to be electable.

[Red1]

80. You Are Very Naive

"His name is Dennis Kucinich who will pull us out of Iraq NOW"

You are very naive, you think as the president, by himself Dennis can extract us from iraq? you do realize that it takes more than one person to do this? and that all those others that will need to be convinced will stand in his way?

get real

[kikiek]

59. I agree with you 100 pct, and very well written. Welcome to DU.

Unfortunately we can sound as close minded as those we abhor.

[Red1]

79. I Don't Care

what dem candidate you have on the table now, whether they
talk as exclusionist from continuing the war, whether they
talk anti americun corp, whatever you want to talk about as
far as anyone but HRC having your perfect liberal qualifications,
once they get behind the big chair, the virgins will be broken.
they will support a slow withdrawal from iraq. they will support
offloading of americun jobs - that is the sad but true state of
affairs in this country, better to have someone that doesn't try
to pose as a perfection but is one mean wicked pro liberal type
of politician. those of you against HRC are unrealistic....

[BigDDem]

137. Dennis has a chance????????

Hilarious!!

Has he gone from * to 1% yet?

[davidwparker]

78. Welcome to DU.

No, I don't like Bill Clinton. His policies over time have had bad consequences for the middle class. It seemed great during the 90's, but NAFTA/WTO and the Telcom consolidation were really poor decisions. He's charming though. That's it.

[BobRossi]

5. She will guarantee a repub president in 08

What a sad state the Democratic party has come to.

[Psephos]

10. She, plus the effin' Congress

Take a look at the roll call for the Congressional pay raise vote yesterday.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll580.xml

145 Dems said yes, 83 said no.

99 Repugs said yes, 99 said no.

This is what we get with a Democratic House? Where the hell was Pelosi on this?

[ikojo]

110. So, millionaires vote themselves a nice pay

raise, while the minimum wage has to be fought for tooth and nail.

I wish I could vote myself a pay raise. I'm looking at a 2% increase again this year. Oh joy...maybe just maybe I will be able to buy a gallon of milk.

[Psephos]

115. Amen n/t

[fbahrami]

27. What a sad state democracy has come to.

[triguy46]

94. I agree from a pragmatic view. Is there any red state she could take?

Is there a close blue she could take? If you want to see the cockroaches come out of the woodwork, put her up against any repugs in 17 months. Can we say with confidence that any repug candidate short of a cheney entry could do the same for us?

Yes, I'm talking about the phenomena of voting against someone. That is semantics, the result is the same. Your vote doesn't get double points for voting "for" someone.

[tom_paine]

7. This is real. I have seen it.

And it is big big trouble.

[CountAllVotes]

8. well I guess I am one of the "halves" that will not

sorry Hillary but you are in it up to you eyebrows and I know it. Maybe others haven't seen the light yet I can only hope. :think:

:kick:

[David__77]

9. I would vote for her, but this is a concern.

I think she can turn it around. I should state that I support another candidate, but I view none of the major candidates as unsupportable in the general election. I think a candidate who is crystal clear in calling for a speedy end to the war against Iraq is the one who will win.

[Uben]

11. But half will !

And that's all it takes. Show me another candidate that can get half the votes.

[emilyg]

36. Excellent point.

Yes Hillary!!! I'll vote for you.

[journalist3072]

12. It's sad that so many people on DU are drinking the "Hillary is polarizing" koolaid from the MSM

If Hillary really is polarizing, it's because the MSM painted her as such. They have done a good job of painting her as some cold, calculating woman, etc.

And sadly, many of you right here on DU are falling for it.

Sad.

[Uben]

14. I totally agree

What other candidate do we have that can garner half of America's vote? None, nada, zilch! 50% of American voters will win any contest hands down. Why do people try to paint this as a bad thing? Right now, it's in the bag. Show me one candidadte, dem or repug, that is doing that good. There isn't one, and there will not be one. Wake up!

[PaulaFarrell]

45. The poll doesn't say the rest would vote for her

It says that 52% wouldn't even consider it. The rest presumably WOULD consider it, but they then might decide against it. If 52% of voters vote against you, you have lost.

[swag]

16. You offer no evidence for the claims in your post.

Some of us, who will certainly vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, still dislike much of her political and legislative history.

[Psephos]

18. self-delete (wrong subthread)

[Psephos]

19. Translation: opinions different from yours are evil MSM plots

Not trying to be a dickhead, but why not engage the debate, instead of trying to smother it? Why does everything around here have to be some evil plot or conspiracy?

I would vote for HRC if she was the Dem candidate, but only with two clothespins on my nose.

A lot of people don't like her for reasons that have nothing to do with MSM. I don't read newspapers or magazines, listen to talk radio, or have cable or an antenna for my TV. The MSM argument goes nowhere with me.

[harun]

47. Agree. Completely the opposite, MSM is pumping her up

because it would make great news stories having her running. The idea that the big dog could get back in the WH.

I wouldn't vote for her based solely on her Senate record, where she is Republican Corporatist light. If she starting saying things like her administration would follow the constitution and not start wars with anyone it feels like without a REAL declaration of war from congress (not transfer of rights to the Executive) I would reconsider. If she says in her campaign the U.S. would move towards being non-interventionist and wouldn't overthrow and murder members of democratic regimes that were popularly elected I would reconsider. If she would say the current administration are war criminals who will be arrested after her election win I would reconsider. If she would say she is for the elimination of the Health Insurance industry in favor of Gov coverage I would reconsider.

[leftchick]

56. she is polarizing because of her pro-war positions

haven't you noticed her lack of support from real liberals?

[woo me with science]

62. Thank you. nt

[spotbird]

68. Any doubts about

Hillary were allayed when she attended a fundraiser hosted by Rupert Murdoch for her benefit. It’ s possible I could have forgiven her for her support of the war, not that she is remorseful, but the Murdoch deal made any lingering doubts about her sincerity disappear.

Don’t get me wrong, I have many problems with her, but that event was the point of no return.

[flyarm]

111. me too!! the Rupert benefit "sealed" an almost sealed envelope for me!!

i want a clean slate..no more family dynasties..this is not a monarchy..enough already of re-cycled famlies!!

we can not find other people to run and hold office..oh come on...enough already..i can not vote for her..not in the primary and it would be almost impossible for me for the general..i might for the first time in my life have to sit it out..i said might..unless she drastically changed her stances..and meant it


holding my nose just does not sit well with my values..and she does not sit well with my democratic values..or my American values or my woman values, or my mothering values..!

I grew up believing in American values..a vote for Hillary would fly in the face of everything i believe in. Sorry for those solidly in her camp..but that is how i feel..from my gut and my heart!

fly

[leQ]

90. i agree. listen to her when she's got her hair down and not making a speech.

she makes a lot of sense, and i think she's got the fortitude to get the job done. look, she made senator in new york. that was no easy task.

[silverojo]

120. LOL!

"No easy task" for a big-name Democrat to get elected in a blue state? Now, if she'd been elected in Arkansas, THAT would've been impressive....

[silverojo]

119. The MSM didn't convince me she's polarizing

I realized that while she was First Lady, long before the MSM started speculating about the 2008 election.

[fujiyama]

146. The only folks drinking a ton of kool-aid

are the Hillary supporters who live in some dreamworld, unable to grasp the fact that in the real world many people, if not a majority, really hate - if not despise - her.

[Maribelle]

149. You can tell by their petty comments ...

I have not read even one post by the hateful group bashing Hillary that would even come close to justifying the tremendous vile they are expressing. Therefore, common sense leads to an assumption that this hate flows from some sort of illogical hidden raged.

These hate mongers are not those with which I would care to associate; I truly would not want my children left alone in their presence.

They are scary.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Yeah, I can't believe anyone would vote for a return to the Clinton era.

I wonder if those 50% who wouldn't vote for Hillary would vote a 3rd term for Bush?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the poll dynamics. Whatever Democrat wins the primary has a clear lane to the WH. Getting that unelectability meme in play now is important.

[Frances]

17. I think a majority of Americans would love a return

to the Clinton era. If Bill Clinton could run again, I think he'd win in a landslide against any of the current Repub candidates.

That said, I don't know if Hillary can win.

[PBass]

30. What was Bill Clinton's approval rating during the Monica scandal... 68 percent??

I find it impossible to believe that the voters who LOVED Bill Clinton would not vote for Hillary. I consider the "Hillary is polarizing" meme to be very similar to the "Howard Dean is a loose cannon" meme.

Hey, I have an idea... lets have the TV pundits tell us who our candidate should be, based on the perception of "electability".

(How'd that work out for us, in 2004?)

Did anybody watch the debate tonight? There was a lot of support for Hillary in the audience.

[Alexander]

127. Bill Clinton's charisma and star power are not transferable to Hillary.

Bill has incredible charisma and magnetism. That's how he won elections.

Hillary does not.

Just because someone liked or even "loved" Bill doesn't mean they think his wife is the best candidate out there. :eyes:

By the way, about 52% of American voters never voted for Bill Clinton.

Something to think about.

[UTUSN]

15. Half of "Americans." What about "Likely Voters"? n/t

[yasmina27]

20. She won't get my vote in the primaries

but in the general election, if she is the nominee, I'll vote for her as opposed to the repuke contender.

[elocs]

21. Probably 45% or more of voters are not going to vote for any of the Democratic candidates.

So it's not hard to believe that nearly half won't vote for Senator Clinton. I have a Republican friend who probably would not vote for his party's candidate unless the Democrats nominate Senator Clinton. I realize this is anecdotal, but if it was the other way around it would be wildly embraced by her supporters, anecdotal or not. There are also many well informed DU members who have indicated that they would not support her and I hardly think they are MSM dupes, but have their own philosophical differences with her. For myself, she will not get my vote in the primary, but I will vote for her in the general election because the reality is that we need a Democrat in the White House.

[Danger Mouse]

22. I don't like Hillary, in fact I strongly dislike her...

but I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. She's not much better than a rethug lite, but she's a hell of a lot better than any of the slime running on the other side of the aisle.

[w4rma]

40. Me too, but unfortunately most Americans won't vote for her if she is the nominee. (nt)

[RamboLiberal]

24. I will not be a happy camper if she's the nominee

but unlike some here I will not throw my vote away in '08 if she's the nominee. All I need to remind me of the consequences of letting another Repuke win is 5-4 in the SCOTUS which will be guaranteed to be Wingnut for the rest of my life.

If Hillary is the nominee I will vote for her. I may not be excited about it, but I will punch the button for her.

[Rydz777]

26. I would like to have Gore - running on Kucinich's platform. eom

[BenDavid]

29. Oh help me L-rd! Many of

you on this forum relish this poll. You all that have other candidates just enjoy this but all other polls says she CAN WIN the presidency. You look state by state and you HRC winning over any of the right wing candidates.

I would like to say here and now,and this is addressed to the HRC folks that believe she will be the nominee and the next president of the U.S. When someone says, "Do we want 8 more years of Filegate, Travelgate, Blowjobs, etc?" Here is one response: "That's better than terror, invasions, torture, renditions and signing statements."
I do thank you
Ben David

[qwlauren35]

66. Thank you for that reminder.

It's very, very important to remember that a candidate has to win a number of STATES, and not a popular vote. These polls make me forget that. Even if 100% of the voters in various states with 1-2 electoral votes vote against her, and she only gets 55% support in NY, California, that will skew a poll, but it doesn't mean anything on Election Day.

I'm not sure which news is less news... these polling articles, or Paris Hilton coming out of jail.

[beyurslf]

33. Almost half the adults in this country won't vote for any person running for President

next year.

[swag]

34. Good point.

Allen Ginsberg in 1981, about Reagan's victory over Carter:

"Three out of four didn't vote: that's a landslide."

[beyurslf]

35. Not to mention, I believe it was 48% that would NEVER vote for her in the 2000

Senate race. According to that, her best was 52%. She got 55%.

[fujiyama]

147. That's NY State!

One of the heaviest Dem leaning states in the country in '00, giving Al Gore some 60% of the vote!

Sorry, I don't think you can compare that to a nationwide general election.

[Maribelle]

150. Of course you can compare that to a nationwide election

Perhaps you didn't notice the political affiliation of the mayor of NY and the governor of NY when she was first elected?

[WindRavenX]

37. wow. That's pretty damning.

NT

[19jet54]

41. Registered or Un-Registered Voter Poll?

The male population won't vote for a woman?
The whites won't vote for a non-white?
The Evangelicals won't vote for a Mormon?
Yep, sounds like "Mason-Dixon Polling"?

I would say it is "SKEWED" polling for a desired outcome!!!!!

In other words, BS

[Connonym]

42. Media rhetoric

they just repeat the meme and we all fall for this idea of unelectability. :sarcasm:

Those of us in fly-over territory have been saying this since she first announced. I don't have anything against her personally. I think she's a smart woman and maybe she even deserves to be president but that alone isn't enough. Too many people hate Hillary. Period. End of story. I'm sorry about it, it's not fair to her but it's the way it is, life is hardly ever fair. If she's our nominee I don't think we'll win. If she is the nominee I'll vote for her of course and if she wins I'll be the first one to admit that I was full of shit and congratulate her and America but I really can't see that potential outcome.

[info being]

44. I won't either

She's just a kindler, gentler fascist. I'd have to go third party in that case.

[slackmaster]

46. She'll make up for it in volume

:freak:

[Highway61]

50. Face it

The ONLY candidate that will blow everyone else out of the water is Al Gore....should he decide to jump in...I'm one who is hoping with everything I got that he will.

[kurtyboy]

58. If she is our nominee, I will vote for, work for, donate to, and praise her

But she is not my first choice.

As far as the general public goes, I think America is growing weary of two surnames. If Hillary is elected, we will have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 24-28 years in a row. I dunno if John and Jane Q. Public are gonna want to wake up to that in a year and a half.

[robcon]

60. Since when do we link to blogs on LBN?

This is a hatchet-job by a partisan anti-Clinton blog, twisting the lead that Clinton has in the nomination to a negative.

This is supposed to be breaking NEWS??????

[snooper2]

61. WooHoo!

say no to plutocracy!

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. I am no HIllary fan but I do like to read the fine print on these polls

"The Mason-Dixon survey was conducted June 23-25 with

625

likely general-election voters."

Now correct me if I am wrong but 625 is hardly a representative sample of likely voters. :rofl:

[0rganism]

82. 625 gets you within 4% either way (at 95% confidence)...

and within ~5.3% for 99% confidence. This is usually adequate for the kinds of early estimate that are going to be typical of polls available to the public this far in the campaign, although internals may be much more accurate.

Of course, this assumes a random sample of the selected population; if you wanted to challenge it rigorously, you would probably do so on the basis of the survey's definition of "likely general-election voter" as that may have overweighted the population one way or another.

Even in the best case scenario interpretation, it's clear that Sen. Clinton has very high negatives at this point, which is one of the main reasons I wouldn't recommend voting for her in the primary even if you like her issue positions. Some candidates have problems with name recognition or publicity, and those can be overcome during any serious primary election campaign. It's much harder to change someone's opinion once they've already formed it, especially a negative opinion.

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. 625 is hardly a valid sample group

It reminds me of the commercials where they tell us that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend a certain toothpaste - but maybe they only surveyed 5 dentists.

[0rganism]

102. 625 is a valid sample size, and a pretty common one too

The pollsters would have to nearly double the size of the survey group (1100 or so) to get a full % point of greater accuracy at 95% confidence, and it's a bit early in the game to be pulling out those guns.

You might be able to raise an objection wrt the demographics and geographic distribution of the sample, but you'd have to know a lot more about the specifics of who was surveyed to do that. Any responsible analyst would note a serious deviation from population demographic norms and weight accordingly, or invalidate the survey if they were totally out of wack, which is why a lot of surveys ask seemingly unrelated questions like age, gender, income level, and so on before getting to the heart of the matter.

Look, I don't know what your background in statistics is, but the theory of random sampling from a much larger population is settled arithmetic. One way to understand it is by asking yourself, "what are the chances that a random sample of 625 would be unrepresentative of the general population?" That is called the "margin of error" (for a given confidence interval) and the 95% confidence interval is popular because it is very close to 1/sqrt(N). For a random sample of 625 from a much larger population it happens to be roughly +/- 4% at the 95% confidence interval, 1/sqrt(625). 95 times out of 100, those 625 samples will give a result within 4% of the actual value either way.

Similarly, in your dentist example, the MOE is +/- 45% at the 95% confidence interval, where sample size is 5. :D

[MLFerrell]

67. I'm firmly in that 52%.

If she's the Democratic nominee, I'm either not voting, or voting Libertarian. End of story.

[Maribelle]

75. In 2000 Mason-Dixon Polling said Bush would win Flordia by a landslide for the entire race

All the terrible things being said against Hillary today were totally exhausted when she ran for the senate her first time around - - - yet the swing voters in New York love Hillary.

But today, the passionate and strongly worded polemics against Hillary are masquerading the very important issues facing our nation, to a large extent because the controversies ring hollow and weak in the face of the scope and scale of the problems surrounding this nation.


And there are issues beyond what men seem to put high on their lists of priorities.

What about breast cancer?.

How would Stem Cell Research assist in a disease that probably would have been cured by now if women had more power in this male-dominated country?

What about women’s reproductive rights?

Why are Hillary-haters screaming that it is wrong for women to make long-range plans for their careers?

And why on earth is a women being bashed for calling upon everything in her entire being to make her marriage work by a bunch of over-the-hill men that seem to care too much about serial divorce, viagra, and hooter implants then paradoxically turn around and scream that gay marriage will degrade the most holy institutes of marriage ?

[Megahurtz]

76. Here's The Problem That I See.

Someone like Romney getting the G.O.P. Nomination.
Even though he's a Mormon, all the ReichWing Fundies and friends will vote for him.

Then I see all of the divided Democrats swearing that they will never vote for Hillary
if she gets the Democratic Nomination, which I think she will.
Do you want to usher someone like Romney into the White House??? :scared:

If you don't vote, something like this will likely happen.
And don't give me this Third Party crap.
There's no one there right now, and no one there who will win.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not fond of some of the things Hillary has said and done, but

Do you people want to see another G.O.P.er in The White House AGAIN???
HELL FUCKING NO!!! :argh:

It IS food for thought. isn't it? :think:

[RaRa]

83. Yup, I had this conversation with my mom yesterday

she said she and my brother wouldn't vote for her. It didn't take me long to get her to admit that voting for any Republican was unthinkable and that she just needs to pinch her nose and do it if that's her choice. (HC versus a Republican)

[Tesha]

91. No problem: don't nominate Hillary; problem solved. (NT)

[HuffleClaw]

81. that accursed LIBERAL media!

and this is merely the start. wait till they really get their claws into her.

[ryanmuegge]

86. They'll vote for Fred Thompson instead

And who could blame them? He's just SO cool. A law and order candidate who's an average guy with true conservative credentials. Indeed, he's a real man outside of the Washington beltway that speaks for every American. He's so authentic with his rented red pickup truck.

Or whatever fictional biographic sketch the corporate machine will create for their lobbyist turned presidential candidate.

I love the way he stares into the camera with his majestic, dreamy eyes, and how he speaks so authoritatively with that southern accent of his.

[SKKY]

89. If Clinton gets the nomination, which I don't think she will, it will make things very difficult...

One one hand, I don't want to vote for her. But on the other hand, I cannot see myself voting for McCain (Sold his soul and any respect I may have had for him to Bush) or Romney (Who, I think we'd find out is farther right than Bush). If giving my vote to a third-party candidate means Republicans take the WH, than my vote for Hilary would be more to keep them out than to get a Dem back in. Don't believe the news stories about Republicans ditching on Bush. That's just for political survival. If Romney or McCain gets elected, it will absolutely be 4 more years of the same. Sorry folks, but this old salt is way, way to tired for that.

[NoodleyAppendage]

92. Why do you think the Repukes have been playing the "don't sick Clinton on us" trick?

The Repukes know full well that they have the best chance to win 2008 if Hillary is the Dem candidate. And, as is typical, Dems are too short-sighted to not fall in their trap.

J

[triguy46]

93. We've discussed this here ad nauseum, yet this is important.

I'm very scared. I would vote for her. But we are kidding ourselves if we ignore how so many feel about her. Its a gut reaction. Kind of like I have for any of the repugs.

I just want us to win. If we lose to them again, well, hell...

[nolabels]

95. Well at least that will be the end of the story

This was a Corporate America sell job the democratic party is getting suckered in on. So many at D.U. have already predicted this was going to happen, like what is the use in debating anything about it anymore anyway :shrug:

[FreeStateDemocrat]

96. She may finish third. Ain't no realistic way she can win the general after buying the nomination.

[Raine]

99. Hillary won't get my vote

I'll leave it blank.

[welder union]

101. lesser of 2 evils?

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil!

[PBass]

103. Well, I'm convinced now...

If I'm told that some nebulous group of 'other voters' won't vote for Hillary, then I better not vote for her either.

Instead, lets nominate the 2nd or 3rd most popular primary candidate. That sounds so much safer.

[BenDavid]

104. Clinton over, mccain, thompson and rudy

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton is the top-rated presidential contender in the United States, according to a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN. At least 49 per cent of respondents would support the New York senator in head-to-head contests against three prospective Republican nominees.
Thus, it can only go higher and all this talk about HRC cannot win is bs and nost of you that support Obama or Edwards know it to be true...
I do thank you
Shalom
Ben David

[nolabels]

105. In a life of compromise and make do contingency plans are necessary

First you get angry, then you get disgusted and finally you learn how to adapt. HRC was set up to be a type of barricade / guard rail type of of candidate. She is the ticket for corporations to keep their hold on U.S. Politics and keep it from going too far left to hurt them. The world in general has grown too much economically / politically for the U.S. to hold hegemony on rest of it. Her being selected and winning or losing will not have as big as of affect as in past. I don't support anyone in particular but i have learned how some keep their pony parked. In the end let me just tell you that the devil plays with the best laid plans :shrug:

[Alexander]

140. You didn't address the facts presented in the OP.

Namely, that half of Americans have ruled out voting for Hillary Clinton.

"Thus, it can only go higher"

On what planet?

"and all this talk about HRC cannot win is bs and nost of you that support Obama or Edwards know it to be true..."

Well, I don't support Obama or Edwards, so I don't "know it to be true".

It's pretty clear who you support, though. :eyes:

[designforce]

106. Voting Straight Democratic Ticket!

Right now I don't care who the nominee is. I will vote for the Democratic party straight down the line. I want all these rethugs out of power. Once that is done, I will work to get the corporate dems out!

[Tesha]

133. Unfortunately, as was graphically proven in CT, that opportunity will not present.

> Right now I don't care who the nominee is. I will
> vote for the Democratic party straight down the line.
> I want all these rethugs out of power. Once that is done,
> I will work to get the corporate dems out!

Unfortunately, as was graphically proven in CT, that
opportunity will not present. The Corporatists will
never allow you to eject them peaceably.

Tesha

[bushisdirt]

107. She won't get my vote. If Gore don't win the Dem nom, I'll sit it out.....

[BigDDem]

136. The Republican party says

THANK YOU!!!!

[Alexander]

142. The Republicans will also say "thank you" if we nominate Hillary.

That being said, I'm voting for the Democratic nominee, even if the convention is so deadlocked that we nominate a ficus plant.

[droidamus2]

112. Ideals vs reality

Being of the liberal persuasion I would love to see a staunch liberal president with matching large majorities in the Senate and House ideally but the reality is that is not likely to happen (giving either side of the political spectrum total control has its own set of risks). Do I expect the candidate I vote for to match my beliefs 100% no, is there any one position that would make me settle for a Republican being elected rather than a Democrat I don't think so. My 'ideals' could lead me to any number of reasons why I might not want to vote for the nominated Democrat but the political reality is at this time in American history there is not a viable third party and one less vote for the Democratic candidate just means it is more likely that the Republicans will get 4 more years. Considering the number of candidates running in the primaries a large segment of the Democratic party will not have there candidate nominated so many will have to 'hold their nose' when they vote. The reality is that to allow the Republicans to win so you can make some idealistic point is cutting off your nose to spite your face. As an aside, we were told all the time how people really hated Bill Clinton yet all polls show that he was a very popular president in general (barring that one really stupid thing he did) so I wouldn't put to much credence in the idea that everybody hates Hillary. Personally I don't think a lot of people really know that much about Hillary and hopefully debates and the campaign will show that to be true. I Hillary is the Democratic nominee she has my vote, but on the other hand if Edwards, Gore or Obama win the nomination they have my vote as well. Better any Democrat than a Republican!

[roseBudd]

113. right or wrong, nominating Hillary would be akin to nominating Jane Fonda

Only difference is the level of hatred. Fonda hate surpasses Hillary hate.

That being said I would vote for a Democratic bologna sandwich because to not vote for that bologna contributes to the nightmare of a republican president

I'm just hoping our bologna sandwich can garner some southern/white male votes. We cannot write off the South.

[Writer]

114. And how many of those Americans actually vote?

I wonder.

[classysassy]

121. Keep

the faith sen clinton,just another rove poll.

[More Than A Feeling]

124. Electability arguments are undemocratic.

It amounts to giving away your vote to other people to use.

[Liberal Lassie]

125. AND THIS SUPRISES YOU????

Even looking at her face bugs me. I don't like her views and she isn't BILL. I really, REALLY miss Bill and I long for Al. Hillary who?

[dogfacedboy]

126. Don't like Hillary, but I'll vote Dem, regardless.

The only "3rd Party" candidate I'd vote for in '08 would be Al Gore running as the Al Gore Party candidate.

[johnnytoxic]

139. I would vote for Bloomberg over Hillary....

in fact, I'd vote for Roger Clinton over Hillary...

[ProudDad]

132. Doesn't really matter

It only takes about 25 to 27% of voters to select a pResident...

[Martin Eden]

134. Many potential Democratic voters will NOT vote for Hillary

No matter what you or I think of Hillary Clinton, the reality is that a significant percentage of the voting public

WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HER

I'm not saying her high negatives are deserved, but that's just the way it is.


I also suspect that a significant percentage of the voting public will not vote for Barack Obama because of his ethnic background and because of his name.

Edwards may not have what it takes to win the general election.


WE NEED AL GORE

[wordpix]

135. I want Gore to run! Otherwise, it could be another repuke who gets in

[demo dutch]

143. Sorry, but if a Repuke gets in despite the huge mess they've made, they deserve it

I give the American people a little more credit.
It simply means the half of the country will vote for Hillary plus everyone who, in the end will NOT vote Rep under any circumstances

[demo dutch]

141. That means the other half will, plus everyone who WON'T vote Rep under any circumstances

It means nothing at this point!

[fujiyama]

145. Hillary will get a "I don't want any more Alitos on the SC vote"

but it's obvious most people in the US will NOT be voting that way.

If she's nominated, she'll drag down other races as well - for the Senate and House. I would expect many of the gains made in '06 to be wiped out due to her and poor performance of the last several months.

Hillary will be the greatest GOTV effort for the GOP in years.

[Maribelle]

151. The GOP is terrified of Hillary

They are terrified of the sweeping effect she will have against Republicans, drawing many clear thinking conservatives out of the hell hole Bush and his faux conservatives have dug for them.

The GOP has been running against Hillary for years.

[radicalcapitalist]

148. Well, it is a 50-50 nation and the poll is +/- 4%. 2008 will bring us another tight election.

[Honeycombe8]

154. Half of Americans didn't vote for Gore or Kerry. Is that the same half that wouldn't vote..

for Hillary Clinton? Or are these different people?

Nowadays, about 1/3 of the country is Dem., 1/3 is Repub., and 1/3 is Independent (yours truly included).

So if half won't vote for Hillary Clinton, that means that half will. Which means some Independents have nothing against voting for her.

So I guess the point is that some other candidates have MORE of the Independents who say they have nothing against voting for them?

Wonder why the article didn't just say that, and instead chose to make it seem as if half the country not voting for a Dem. candidate was somehow unusual. That is the norm.

[davidthegnome]

155. What is Gore thinking?

He must have at least seen the petition by now, he must know it's out there. He knows the odds we're up against, he knows he's the BEST candidate and would win by a landslide. I wasn't thrilled about him in 2000, but I was sixteen at the time and did not understand the political situation in this Country - nor had I witnessed the horror of this republican administration. Nor had I experienced many rude awakenings I would have later in life.

Al Gore is a hero of the people. He WON in 2000, where the heck were all of us? Where was I? Damnit, I was young and stupid, had I been in my right mind, I would have WALKED to Washington if I had to and gone door to door all across the Country, dragging fellow liberals along by their ears if I had to and demanding they march with me.

It should have created an outright rebellion. What we did get was a few thousand people (to my understanding, correct me if I am mistaken) with some moderate protesting and minor scuffles with the police. In the following years, I would hope that we have learned enough (as like-minded individuals, when it comes to the issues that really matter) from the result of not taking action then.

Gore would completely blow any competition out of the water. He knows it, we know it, but we have to convince him to run, we have to let him know the support is there - that he won't go through the terror of winning another election only to have a disgusting disgrace to the human race sitting in the oval office.

The petition is great, but is it enough? I've signed up, anyone out there actively promoting this? What else can I do? I don't have the money right now to help fund the campaign, but anything else I can do to help I will.

One final question... is there anyone (non freeper checking out the competition) reading this that would not vote for Gore, if given the chance? If so, could you please explain why? I firmly believe that we are no-where near united enough to do what needs to be done in order to "take back the power". I do believe, however, that Al Gore would unite us significantly enough that the vast, vast majority of liberals, independents, democrats and general progressives would fall in behind him.

I asked someone today, why he thought Gore wasn't going to run. He told me, "Al Gore is a hero. Why ruin it by becoming a President?" My response was, "Because we need him, he's our secret weapon right now, our hidden strength. He knows what's at stake, he's got to step up."

That said... if HRC was my only choice in 2008... I may vote for her, or I may simply move to another Country. I'm so frustrated with our politics right now, I'm so frustrated with the divisiveness amongst the decent, free-thinking people of this Nation. I realize that, to some extent, we can't help it because we ARE free thinking. However... winning in 2008, beating the thieves, the cheaters, the liars, the criminals and the scum bags... is going to require greater unity.

That's why I think we need Gore.

Ok, I'm shutting up. Sorry for the long rant, but there has to be more we can do, short of tying him up and yodeling at him until he agrees to run (and we get it in writing).

Happy (slightly belated) fourth of July everyone. It is (or was, a few hours ago) independence day, let's celebrate it by winning our independence. Everyone has to get on board, we've got to convince him.

David