Ya wanna know why Hillary is the "leading" Dem candidate in the polls?

[mtnsnake]

I think it's because so far the Democrats can't come up with anyone who's got a better chance or anyone who's more electable than she is. Either the rest of our field is too young or inexperienced to make a big splash yet or they're even MORE unelectable than she is.

You can piss and moan about Hillary and how the corporate press is pushing her down our throats, but until you provide the name of a listed Democratic candidate who's more electable than she is, you can expect to continue hearing about her.

I'm not going to say that our field of candidates sucks, but go right down the list, one by one, and tell me who has a better chance of winning than she does...and not just winning on DU, but across the country.

Personally, I'd love to see Dean, Clark, or Obama get the nod, but I'd be only fooling myself if I said they stood a better chance than Hillary does right now.

We really need a "saviour" for this party, and so far we're coming up empty. I like Hillary, don't get me wrong, but the only guy that gives me real hope of being a saviour is Barack Obama, even though he's not too popular on this forum.

[wtmusic]

1. Russ

How "electable" is he? Who knows...let's find out.

[mtnsnake]

3. He's pretty popular here, yes, but does he stand a better chance at

winning a national election than Hillary would? I don't think so, personally.

[surfermaw]

6. I also like Russ...

[wtmusic]

19. I agree, if the election happened today

IMO both Iraq and the economy will be far worse by then.

Russ is a truly inspiring speaker who has yet to find a spot in the media limelight. His willingness to commit on issues will win over more Republicans than Hillary, who will be perceived as less of a leader.

[flaminbats]

100. name recognition and first impressions always count!

the first impression most people have of Hillary was the healthcare reform legislation she supported in 1993. That legislation divided our party, while winning very little popular support. I liked the bill, but Republicans succeeded in painting it as nothing more but rationed healthcare with long waiting lines.

What do most people associate with" Feingold"? They think McCain-Feingold...ie campaign finance reform! This will win him votes in red and blue states, while winning him the reputation as someone who is not another prostitute for campaign contributors.

Bush demonstrated in 2000 that winning the national vote just isn't enough to become President. Winning 270 electoral votes is all that is necessary to win. I believe Feingold can do this and Hillary would not.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

83. Russ is my favorite person in government but not electable...

this time. I feel he needs to be married to carry mainstream conservative America. Besides we need him to watch the Senate and blow his whistle.

Nancy likely won't run but she's my second favorite political figure.

All that said, I'm on board with the good Doctor. He's tough and talks straight, which IMHO represents the right stuff.

[patrice]

2. This seems a very reactionary point of view. n/t

[surfermaw]

4. Gore & Edward's..keep Clark out of the pricure or Loose again

[mtnsnake]

8. I love Al Gore, but I think we overrate his chances in a general election

if he were to run. Come election time, he'll have been out of politics for 8 years. That's not good. Also, with too many people (not us), he's got that image of losing, even though he really won.

Al Gore getting the nod would make many of us thrilled, but I don't know if he'd have a better chance than Hillary would.

[Mind_your_head]

40. Some people would think Gore's "being out of politics" for 8 years

is a good thing! A lot of people don't want "more of the same", ya know corruption and 'favors' that need to be "repaid" that go against the general interests of the people of our country. People who are currently 'inside the system' seem to be totally entangled in all sorts of sordid machinations.

America is crying out for an honest leader ~ without ENTANGLEMENTS!

[Clark2008]

81. Hmmm...

The poor spelling.

The fear of a Clark candidacy because he can flip some red states.

The picking of a fluffy VP who didn't help flip any red states the last time around.

Smells like a Republican comment to me.

:shrug:

[Sam Odom]

5. Gore/Clark

A winning team... The Southern strategy

[Bobbieo]

10. What the Dems need is "common sense approach"

and Gore/Clark fit the bill!

[Reckon]

13. I second that!... nt

[ourbluenation]

68. damn skippy!

that's a winner.

[Master Mahon]

7. I don't think Hill can win it

and she's 'displayed' as the Dem's choice because she's the only one who gets the MSM's constant harping and attention.
Now we know that if the MSM keeps strutting Hillary as 'the candidate' they there is definitely something wrong here. They are trying to pick our candidate for us by battering people with her, day in and day out so People just assume that she's who everyone wants.
To me there are a litany of people far more qualified and more apt to win.
If she's the ultimate candidate I will vote for her.

[mtnsnake]

11. You say there are more people "apt to win" than her, but you don't say who

I kind of feel the same way as you do at times, but when I go down the list, I can't come up with any names who would realistically stand a better chance. Can you?

[CoffeeCat]

16. I don't think a candidate reaches their full potential...

...until s/he declares, throws out an agenda and begins campaigning like a mad dog.

Look at Howard Dean. He was not well-known nationally, but he began campaigning and he cultivated a huge--almost cult-like following.

There's so much potential out there in the Dem field--Clark, Edwards, Gore, Feingold, etc.

America is just waiting for a savvy, common-sense, passionate candidate who will return our country to the right track--and rescue us all from this Fascist, hatemongering train into hell on which the Bush junta has America.

Just you wait. Someone amazing will emerge, an they will galvanize the Dems, wow the Independents and even convince many Republicans. It's going to be spectacular.

[mtnsnake]

22. I hope you're right!

I like you're optimism.

[Master Mahon]

41. Let me see....

I think Gore or Kerry can win since, in reality, they all ready have.
I think Feingold, Edwards, Bayh, Clark, Warner and maybe Vilscack can win also.
I personally like Dennis Kucinich. He comes from VERY humble beginnings and seems to speak straight from the heart. What I know of his positions are mirror images of my own, or he sees things the same way I do. I don't profess to be an expert on him, he's not my congressman. Sadly,
I don't think he can win. Not because of his issues mind you, but many people are unable to see him as 'presidential'. Personally I think he's a 'giant' of a man and would represent middle America probably better then anyone ever has. I wish I new more first hand information about him.

[mtnsnake]

47. I feel similarly about Kucinich as you do

If America was a smart country, I think he'd stand a good chance of being president. Unfortunately, we know that this country isn't full of smart people when it comes to picking their leaders.

Even though most of us know deep inside that Kucinich doesn't stand a realistic chance, it doesn't mean he's not the best man for the job. Nowadays, being the best man for the job doesn't mean much. It's more important for people to be able to have someone they can associate themselves with....like a lying dummy who puts on a cowboy act.

[DYouth]

53. I agree completely

[no_hypocrisy]

9. I believe it's partly b/c the RNC is secretly contributing to her nascent

campaign in order to choose the candidate against whome their candidate will run.

[mtnsnake]

14. So give me a name of a Dem who you think stands a better chance in a

general election if that's the reason you think she's on top in the polls.

[no_hypocrisy]

21. I agree with your premise. The DNC is not funneling money to another

challenger to Hillary. But that does not invalidate my point. The situation could encompass both our premises.

[CoffeeCat]

12. It's still soooo early...

The reason that other names are not "sticking" is because no one else has formally declared.

Howard Dean soared to unbelievable popularity, after announcing his candidacy. However, prior to being a serious contender, most people didn't know who he was.

Hillary is a likely candidate--combine that with her name recognition and former First Lady status--and the media focuses on her the most.

Other candidates that may turn out to be outrageously popular--have not declared yet. Therefore, the media doesn't focus on their candidacies seriously yet.

Just give it some time. The Democrats will rally behind some amazing candidates in the primary--and at that time the media will be all abuzz.

I think the Dem primaries are going to be exciting. We've got some great people out there--Gore, Feingold, Clark, Edwards, etc. Furthermore, I am chomping at the bit to select our candidate and for the campaign season to begin. The Dems are so frickin galvanized against the Republicans and I believe there will be an avalanche of involvement, support, excitement and passion for our candidate--and for our bid to take back the White House and Congressional seats from this sick, Fascist group of thug criminals.

[mtnsnake]

18. I find everything you said hopeful, & I agree with all you said except

for "It's still soooo early"

[CoffeeCat]

25. It is early...

If I was a Dem candidate, running against the vicious, vitriol-driven, hatemongering Republican machine--I would not step my toe in the water--or declare anything--until we were closer to the general election and I had my team organized and my plans ready to go.

Why give the evil weasels more time to plot and scheme?

Anyway--have we EVER had presidential candidates declare and begin campaigning before the Congressional elections take place? Most people are focused on the 06 Congressional elections--and then the GE season begins to gear up.

I think we're just all so frickin sick of the Bush cabal--that we are getting desperate and impatient about the next GE.

I certainly understand those feelings. I'm sick and tired of that steamy pile of hamster dung--who shames out nation on a daily basis. A new Dem candidate would give us all hope for change--and a signal that there's a light at the end of the tunnel.

It's been a long, hard slog with that thug at the helm.

[heidler1]

43. Hillery's biggest problem now is she hasn't joined the bring our troops

home now movement. IMO she will when the time is right. If she don't someone else will get nominated.

[mtnsnake]

93. I agree that could hurt her chances in the primaries

but she's standing up for what she believes is the best position to take both for the Iraqi people and our country. Many of us don't agree with her on this issue, but at least we know where she stands on it, and at least she blames the mess on Bush and she blames his policies more vocally than most any other Democrat.

Still, until some other Democrat catches fire, she's the one to beat. I hope the competition in her brings out the best we still have yet to offer. Maybe someone else will rise to the top, but time is getting shorter.

[AtomicKitten]

15. self-delete

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

23. Maybe you could start a thread on that

since it has little to do with the OP of this one.

[MissWaverly]

20. Inconvenient Truth, Choose Gore

Gore is the person that can lead us to victory, and I think Clark should be his VP.

[phiddle]

24. Nah, name recognition is the ONLY reason that she's leading.

But her negatives are also extrememly high, so I expect that she will NOT win the nomination.
In 1990, virtually no one knew who Bill Clinton was, and he won the presidency. In 1958 virtually no one knew who JFK was, and he won the presidency. In 1998, virtually no one knew who GWB was, and he stole the presidency. Dean, John Edwards and Wes Clark are right now ahead of where the 1st 3 were at comparable stages in their presidential campaigns, and are in very good shape to challenge Hillary.

[Cocoa]

37. name recognition for sure

up until about 3 months before the primaries, Hillary will still be the only candidate a majority of voters will have heard of. A few might vaguely remember John Kerry.

[Ediacara]

26. I disagree

Hillary is leading in polls for the same reason Lieberman led in polls in 2002: they have household name status while the other contenders don't. When given a list of names (Wes Clark, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold) most people have only ever heard of Hillary and Edwards, so as a result, Hillary gets a big boost.

[mtnsnake]

28. You might be right, but are you also saying that

you think that one or more of Clark, Biden, Richardson, Edwards, or Feingold would stand a better chance of winning a national election than she would?

[Ediacara]

29. I was just giving a "standard" list of "contenders"

I think Clark, Edwards, and Feingold would do well. I'm also not saying that Hillary would do badly. I'm just saying that without any announced candidates and without any announced platforms these polls rely on name recognition.

As for Biden and Richardson though... I think Biden would do terribly due to his past issues with plagiarism, his motormouth, and his attitude; and I think Richardson, despite being more than qualified, just may not seem presidential, and would end up losing.

[election_2004]

71. Yes

Hillary could win, but it would be a razor-thin Electoral College victory, and it would cost Democrats a lot of congressional seats in the red/purple states due to split-ticket voters.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. I wish Americans would pay closer attention to the political scene,

...so I agree with you.

The ONLY reason why Hillary and Edwards are known most is because of "name recognition".

But personally, I'd love to see Russ Feingold, though now with Israel attacking Lebanon, and Israel being synonomous with "Jew", and Americans pretty much disgusted by the excessive force used by Israel to hammer Lebanon, I think Russ's chances might be hurt.

But I LOVE Jon Tester, though I'm a Californian! I saw him in the debate with Coburn, and I have to say, Jon's one helleva debater!

I sure hope he wins. He's got it all.

Now if we can ensure a fair election in Montana...

[JAYJDF]

27. Although I would vote for her if it was between her or a repub, but

I think too many other people on the fence would NOT vote for her. Because she's a Clinton, a woman, "angry", whatever. There were a lot of people who voted against Busch. We don't need that mind set about Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

30. "Angry" shouldn't even enter into it

Funny how if a man is determined and relentless, they call him ambitious, but if a woman is determined and relentless, she's "angry".

[JAYJDF]

33. I agree. I don't consider her angry. In fact, I think more emotional

display should be made by Dems. Outrage should be the norm. But "angry" is what the MSM has already labled her.

[BlueCollar]

31. easy

because the republicans have anointed her as our leading candidate, and the press have picked up that ball and run with it...forcing Democrats to accept her standing.

once again,the republicans are defining the agenda.

[queenbdem87]

34. Mark Warner, Mark Warner, MARK WARNER!!!!!!!!

[JAYJDF]

35. Who has an understanding of the military? Who has been putting

Repub Senators back on their heels? It is too early to declare running and that's why it looks like Hillary is in the lead. Heck, she's the only one who is obviously going to run. Although Gore might do well too, I am concerned the old crap that was thrown his way would just give them a head start on Swiftboating him. Same thing with Kerry. They both really do look like better candidates than previously, but, I think a new face is on order.

[rep the dems]

45. I personally don't know much about Warner

except that people here on DU seem to hate him, but he would probably have a pretty good chance. He was very popular in Virginia which is obviously a red state, seems to have a pretty moderate stance (which doesn't appeal much to me but could to other voters), and he was a GOVERNOR. No one will be able to attack him on issues like Iraq like the pugs did with Kerry, and historically, it's governors and vice presidents who become presidents.

[BlackVelvet04]

95. Not to mention he attended the 2005

Bilderberg Meeting.

[norml]

36. And here I thought it was because right wing radio clowns have been saying

"Hillary's Running for President!" for the last 15 years.

[election_2004]

72. LOL....

Took the words right out of my mouth! ;)

[IndianaGreen]

38. Hillary is a chicken hawk

and her only experience is in triangulating and in advancing the interests of her corporate sponsors. She will only succeed in uniting the antiwar Left and the Right against her.

Al Gore won Florida and the election in 2000, he can certainly lead us to victory.

John Kerry won Ohio and the election in 2004, he can certainly lead us to victory.

[Auntie Bush]

39. When CLARK gets in the race...he'll be our saviour.

Think about it...
He has had executive experience and head of state status.
Has negotiating experience and personally knows many world leaders etc.
He can get the religious vote from Catholics, Jews and Baptists.
Naturally, he's strong on defense. We need a military commander to get us out of this mess bush* has gotten us into.
Couldn't find anyone with more intelligence and after dummy-in-chief he'd be a welcomed with open arms.
He's an excellent stratigest...which we desperately need!
He's worldly...just the opposite of George.
He can not only speak English, but he speaks 3 languages.

Know one else running can compare with him.
He's our Knight in shining armor.

[Dinger]

42. Once Clark Jumps In, And He WILL JUMP In, He Will Save Us All. . . . .

Wes Clark, my HERO!!!

[mtnsnake]

56. You left one quality out

He's exceedingly LIKEABLE.

If he could just get past the primaries, I think he'd have a good shot at bringing home the bacon.

[rep the dems]

44. If you think that Hillary is our most electable candidate

then our chances of taking back the White House in '08 are dangerously low. Unless of course the repugs nominate Sam Brownback :puke:

[mtnsnake]

52. I'm not endorsing her as being the most electable. I'm just alarmed

that the rest of the field, IMO, doesn't seem anymore electable than she does right now. The cream, if there is one, hasn't risen to the top yet.

[TayTay]

46. Everything is speculative at this point

It's the fun part of the invisible primary: everybody has a chance and nobody has yet dropped out due to money problems or no support or gaffes.

It's too early to tell. Every primary holds surprises when people who are a lock to run, don't; people who you think will get nowhere suddenly start attracting attention and supporters and so forth.

Anything can still happen and probably will.

[mtnsnake]

49. That's what I'm hoping

suddenly start attracting attention

I'm hoping that someone is either going to come out of the blue and take us all by surprise or that someone we're already considering is simply going to come on real strong and show the country a new side of them that will make everyone take notice. We'll need momentum going in.

[TayTay]

65. Give it another 8-9 months to start to jell

It's still very early for that. Right now, they better all support the Dem 2006 efforts to take the House and Senate or else. (Priorities.)

[NotGivingUp]

48. Why does anybody believe Hillary is our candidate....because the...

tv (bible) tells us so. Repukes want Hillary because she is a Repuke. Our only hope is to go for the person who is gonna tell it like it is....someone who is not ready to give up on ANY of the issues. Don't be swayed on this. It is our only hope.

[mtnsnake]

50. Oh geez

Repukes want Hillary because she is a Repuke

For crise sake there isn't a REAL repuke who'd agree with you that she's a repuke. They all think she's the most liberal leftist around, and for good reason. Out of 100 senators, she ranks in the top 10 of all senators voting progressively on all the issues. Voting for the IWR doesn't make her a repuke, nor does any other lame reason you can come up with make her a repuke. I'd love to see you back up your claim that she's a repuke with some facts.

If anyone ISN'T a repuke, it's Hillary Clinton, and sometimes I think the twits who often claim she's a repuke on this forum are actually repukes themselves who want to bring her down in their own pathetic way.

[DYouth]

51. If she's a top progressive, I fear how far right the Dems have gone

With her incessant warmongering, I really fear if she's one of the top leftists we have.

[mtnsnake]

54. That's another fallacy. She's not a warmonger

She's labeled one sometimes around here because whe doesn't want to pull out of Iraq immediately, but she blames Bush's poor policies in Iraq for not being able to do so.

[DYouth]

55. She is a strong supporter of the war -- she loves it

I've seen her speak in person about how it's improving human rights, about how it is a brave and noble thing to do.

And she hasn't opposed a war since Vietnam, and that was only on strategic grounds.

She never finds US policy unjust from what I know of her. She's another White Man's Burden Democrat.

[mtnsnake]

58. She's a strong supporter of doing what's best NOW for the Iraqi people

as well as our own country. Oh wait, the Iraqi people don't matter, I suppose.

[DYouth]

59. She's a warmonger

Her position is only different from Bush's in that she disagrees on how the Noble Crusade has been run.

I'm sorry, I won't back down. She's never embraced a peace position in her life post-Vietnam, and that was from her own biography for strategic and not moral reasons.

[mtnsnake]

61. Good for you

[NotGivingUp]

67. No...good for YOU....you and hillary get your asses over to iraq NOW

[mtnsnake]

74. Funny, you can't back up your IDIOTIC statement that she's a repuke, so

you try and post something equally ridiculous to me about serving in Iraq with her.

Look pal, don't preach your self-righteous sayings to me that you copied from another thread from posters much smarter than you and pasted here in a thread to me that has no relevance what so ever to what anyone is saying here.

You're simply a braindead little twit who doesn't bother reading the entire OP, the follow-up posts, or anything else but the title. In other words, you're one of the all too common LAZY whiners who run around looking for a spot to paste their not so cool, UNORIGINAL, copied saying in the wrong place, when you have nothing ever to offer that's original.

I'm one of the last people you want to be telling to get my ass to Iraq you completely senseless internet troll.

...and all of this just because you FAILED MISERABLY to back up your IDIOTIC statement that Hillary Clinton is a repuke. You couldn't back it up with any facts, so you instead posted something that makes as little sense as your original statement did.

Now run along....

[DYouth]

77. She's not a repuke, she just acts like one on the war

And she's morally responsible for it as much as Bill Frist and others in the Senate who trumpeted it.

[sendero]

90. Anyone with .

.... judgement so abjectly poor as to believe that our continued presense is somehow helping the Iraqis is not worthy of any vote.

Nothing would be a bigger disaster for the Dem party than to nominate Hillary - she will GOTV for Republicans like even Republicans couldn't do otherwise.

The good polling right now is purely the result of the fact that most Americans have no freaking idea who the Dem contenders are, the only name they recognize is Clinton.

It's pretty sad really.

[NativeTexan]

57. I've never hid my appreciation for the Clintons, but..........

.......I haven't made my mind up, and will probably be open until the primary season actually gets started. Of course, that will be immediately after this fall's elections.

Clark is a fav of mine. I could live with Hillary if she got the nod. IMHO, Obama would make a GREAT VP candidate right now. Dean has a national "reputation" enhance by the Republican Smear Machine that might be hard to overcome....but I like him. Russ would surely have to be considered electable. Al could be the dark horse, though, in the whole process. If Hillary looks strong by Spring, 2008, look for Al to step in and BE the "savior".....but THIS time, if he gets the nomination, he won't be keeping Bill on the sidelines and keeping distance. He, or any of them, will embrace the greatest politician since JFK, and use those abilities to raise cash and get out the vote.

[mtnsnake]

60. Right on

You make all the sense in the world!

[rurallib]

62. It's because Fox and other media are pushing her

with real Dems I don't believe she's #1 or 2

[mtnsnake]

63. The national polling of Democrats has nothing to do with Fox. nt

[NativeTexan]

69. Right you are snake. But I believe some of the polling reflects........

......the vaccum created by two stolen wins and the wish by more Democrats, than many on DU want to admit or realize, for a "Clinton" resurgence that might take the country back to some of the best times, overall, since "Camelot". As this race goes on, we shall see just how realistic a Hillary presidential run is. As I have said, I could live with that, as I could with many of the others.

Of course, I have a Chihuahua that could out-perform what we have dealt with since 2001!!

[imlost]

64. Clark and I'll take Gore too. n/t

[theanarch]

66. give me a break...

...the DP could run a first-term city councilman from East Dogfart, Kansas, for president, and win with about $500M. (the going rate for a "credible" campaign) in advertising/propoganda, with which any kind of persona could be projected, however false or misleading (look what it did for Regean and Junior)...they'd just need the right mix of soft-core image spots and hard-core attack ads, and lip service to the issues most relevant to the most voters (hey, worked for Bubba, didn't it?)

[sueh]

70. Gore, Gore , Gore...and Clark...

Obama is way too inexperienced although he is a successful money making machine. Unfortunately, he spends a lot of his time raising money. When I voted for him, I voted for him to spend his time representing me and my fellow Illinoisians. Go, Al!!

[ndcohn]

73. I agree - and we need to think totally differently about the election

i'm not compelled by the argument that (other) democrats are more 'electable' then hillary.

just as one can say that hillary is (either too moderate or too liberal), a woman, <list of reasons she isn't electable goes here>; you can construct the same damn lists for ANY of the candidates.

i think we have to get past these two arguments if we can move on to having a useful primary

1. only a southerner can win
its true that the last 2 democrats that have won are southerners - but thats not because of geographic location, its a matter of respect. The candidates which lost the most in the south lost because they didn't respect the south, understand the south, or adknowledge the south. it doesn't take a southerner to do that. Hell, gore couldn't even win his own home state. Was the difference between Gore 00' and Kerry 04' the fact that Kerry was from MA? i doubt it. Mark Warner's success in Virginia is evidence of this. Warner is from CT, and he sure as hell doesn't have a southern accent. He won by the things i mentioned above. Any northern democrat can do that, in my opinion.

2. liberals cant win
i think there is a strong case that the american public has never been more liberal in the post-new deal era. Republican excesses in government have devestated the conventional notions of federal restraint and reagan conservatism. Rove has morphed conservatism into a series of wedge social issues, far removed from traditional notions of conservative governance. In many ways, bush conservatism is probably more aptly depicted as 'bad liberalism' - that is, a big government that works for special interests, rather then the people. In a choice election against a non-reagan conservative , a democrat who is really willing to press BOLD BIG policy ideas - Apollo Energy, Universal Health care, blah blah, will easily defeat the republican - absent traditional conservatism, they have no philosophical defense of their inaction. This is an excellent position for a liberal democrat.
But lets say we do face a republican who calls for small government... i think thats just as good. The american people aren't asking for the government to do less - they want the government to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, for them. They think of katrina and say 'where was the government', they think of and ask 'what is the government going to do about it'. A liberal with bold solutions will annihilate a conservative who begs the people to say no to the governmental action they desperately desire.
I don't have the polls on me, but i have seen polls which really demonstrate this. If you ask the question - do you think the government should provide universal health care - its something like 52-27. If you did a poll about apollo energy, i think you'd get an even wider margin. This demonstrates that post-new deal concerns about the government have largely faded in the wake of a government that fails to address any issues.

That said - i think we want a candidate who is
1. Bold - willing to present big ideas, with a big vision. Thats what america is looking for. (perhaps Edwards and Obama would be best in this catagory do their youth, their charsma, and their demonstrated support of big progressive ideas. I have a hunch that if Gore ran he would be effective in this catagory too)
2. Strong - our weakness on national security is an issue of perception, not policy. a strong candidate is what we need to pass the 'can you keep me safe' litmus test. Even beyond national security - the president has to be strong. I would say this was Kerry's biggest problem in 04'. (I think hillary is probably strongest in this catagory)
3. Respectful - a winning democrat has to be respectful and understanding of the otherside in the culture war. Otherwise, we allow for the cultural divide to dominate the electoral pattern, which isn't favorable to the democrats. we have the potential to far exceed our 2004 numbers, but only if we can get past the culture block which keeps democrats below 49/48%. A simple moderation of rhetoric, and an effective way to reach out to this voters should be enough to allow for significant inroads. (Hillary and Obama certainly are doing this already. We will see if the rest catch on)

Its no guarantee for victory, but i think thats our best scenario.

[kywildcat]

75. because rove and company sez so...

we hear 'Hillary' as a candidate from the right far more than we do the left...why? because yet again, they are trying to pick our candidate for us. By keeping a divisive name out front, and asking dem candidates what their thoughts are/ how they would feel running against Hillary...the republicans keep Hillary front in center as a candidate.

[NotGivingUp]

76. I agree with you 100%!!

[opihimoimoi]

78. Hillary is Leading: Right Place Right Time Right Frame of Mind

Intelligent, Articulate, Benevolent, Courageous, Wants to do the Right thing for America....

Should she prevail the primaries, I will support/vote for her.

[blm]

79. So - if you don't believe the election fraud and machine fraud are real

then you won't be working with us to expose it before 2008?

[mtnsnake]

80. ??

:wtf:

[blm]

82. Most Democrats ARE electable - that's why GOPs pull so much election fraud

shit - they work four years to thwart the next Dem candidate any which way they can, and buying control of most broadcast media and most electronic voting machines was a sure way to carry it off.

If Dems worked as hard COUNTERING their crap at every step, we'd be able to take office after we won.

[benny05]

84. Either A Few DU'ers are Misinformed or I Am

Some of you may have missed my post from yesterday (after all, it was posted on a Saturday) about who is leading as most acceptable, and some perceive as likable, so in case you did miss it....

Senator Clinton is not leading in the polls as one may think. Let's say that again: she is not leading in the polls. She leads in name recognition and cash that she gets from Faux News people, as someone pointed out, Murdoch has bankrolled her a bit. And yes, Georgie from "This Week" is kind about her compared to when he did his "kiss and tell" book about the Clinton White House.

Here's the real skinny from the Gallup/USA Today:

Edwards Tops List of Likable Democrats for 2008

Opening paragraph:

- Former North Carolina senator John Edwards is regarded as a good presidential contender for Democratic Party supporters in the United States, according to a poll by Gallup released by USA Today. 71 per cent of respondents believe the 2004 vice-presidential nominee would be an acceptable candidate in the 2008 election.

Question (asked on the survey): I'm going to read you a list of people who may run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. For each, please tell me if you would find that person to be an acceptable nominee for president from the Democratic Party.

Here's the rundown:

John Edwards 71%
Hillary Rodham Clinton 69%
Al Gore 68%
John Kerry 59%
Joe Biden 44%
Wesley Clark 42%
Howard Dean 40%
Bill Richardson 36%
Tom Daschle 35%
Russ Feingold 29%
Mark Warner 29%
Dennis Kucinich 21%
Tom Vilsack 19%

Source: Gallup/USA error margin of 5+, read on Argus Reid Consultants site.

Still wondering why Bayh was not included in the survey.

Considering Gallup painted the poll as "Four in 10 Don't Find McCain Acceptable" instead of pointing out the leaders of the Dems, I thought this was interesting.

Still don't believe it about John Edwards? Try Chris Bowers' Netroots survey. Sorry font is kind of large on this one since I have copied it here.



Number is 86%, larger.

What about the Iowa poll? Yes, the secondary line says "Edwards, Clinton Top Democratic Choices". But notice whose name is first.

A new Iowa Poll conducted for The Des Moines Register shows that Edwards, the runner-up in the Iowa Democratic caucuses two years ago and a frequent visitor to the state since then, is the choice of 30 percent of Iowans who say they are likely to take part in the January 2008 caucuses.

Senator Clinton is a good speaker and she has done some good work for her new home state of NY (trying the Kennedy approach, but sorry, she is no Bobby Kennedy--John Edwards is closer; however, no one will be Bobby), but even the WaPO, which is somewhat more progressive than many newspapers had the following headline on July 13th which read, Beyond the Poll Numbers, Voter Doubts About Clinton.

By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 13, 2006; Page A01

Anna Shelley, a mother of three from Utah, says she is ready for a female president, and she is sure that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has what it takes.

But Shelley, a Democrat, is not sure she could ever pull a lever for Clinton. Her reservations are vague but unmistakable: Something about Clinton leaves her cold.


As much as I appreciate President Bill Clinton, I think he could be a liability as much as an asset when the media reports new friendships with Canadian women. I hate reading that stuff because as far as I am concerned, it's none of my friggin' business, and never was, but when the NYT even reports on it, it's so weird, and those articles can impact voters' minds, wondering about Clinton's days in office and having to go through impeachment.

John Edwards and his team are advancers in spreading out messages technologically. I am still trying to take advantage of all of them.

This month, Edwards did a bookcast with President Jimmy Carter to talk about "Our Endangered Values." Someone at the DU said s/he thought Carter was a great president. I wish I could talk with a man who won a Nobel Peace prizer about his thoughts on politics and how to improve them. Well, JRE did it for me.



John Edwards has the biggest asset ever: his hero and wife, Elizabeth. The two are joined at the hip. They have the best podcasts (and the first ones to have one), they are caring for the regular Benny on the street, and very akin to FDR's Fireside Chats, except they do it together most of the time.



So with all due respect, Senator Clinton may have cash, but it is corporate, and thus it's not particularly clean (meaning special interest), and her positions aren't particularly clear, especially about the Iraq War. I'm just trying to use some articles and surveys to make a point. Those point for now why why she is not leading in the polls, contrary to what the TV says.

[philgobluemi]

85. Edwards Leads Iowa Poll

It's worth restating the obvious:

Edwards Winning in Iowa Poll
(May 29 to June 1, 2006). MOE: 4.9%

Edwards: 30%
Clinton: 26%
Kerry: 12%
Vilsack: 10%
Daschle: 3%
Feingold: 3%
Warner: 3%
Bayh: 2%
Clark: 2%

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060611/NEWS09/606110338/1001/archive

[philgobluemi]

86. 2008 Set Up for Edwards

The Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws committee on Saturday approved adding an early caucus for Nevada and an early primary for South Carolina in 2008. The schedule, if approved by the
full DNC in August, would be:
Iowa Jan. 14
Nevada Jan. 19
New Hampshire Jan. 22
South Carolina Jan. 29.
The window for other states would open Feb. 5.

Iowa
Edwards has his organization intact in Iowa (an organization that got Chet Culver the gov nomination), leads the polls there now, is working the state, and has held or expanded his caucus support. Vilsack's a non-factor in his home state.
Predicted Iowa Results 1-2-3: Edwards, Feingold, Clinton

Nevada
So JRE wins Iowa and goes to Nevada, another caucus state. Caucus is all turnout, and the Democratic party in Nevada is one organization: Culinary Union 226 of Las Vegas, Unite Here's power base, the strongest local union in the country, 60,000 strong, in the strongest union city in the country. And Unite Here is 1000% behind Edwards--He WILL win a Nevada caucus, no question about it.

New Hampshire
Might be Hillary's last stand.

South Carolina
And then there's SC, the state Edwards already won by a lot in 2004!

Edwards would knock Hillary out here and then hold of an attempted late charge by Warner.

Really, if this combination gets picked, Edwards is in position to win 3 of the first 4 states. And if NH rubber-stamps the preceding states like it did last time, he could

[MeanBone]

101. Ex-Clinton adviser Ickes is worried about Edwards

Before the DNC committee approved South Carolina as the early primary, former Bill Clinton adviser Harold Ickes argued against S.C. because ... John Edwards would win it. Ickes claimed that S.C. wouldn't be taken seriously because of Edwards. He was obviously trying to lower expectations for Hillary.

As the primaries get nearer and more polls are released, Democrats are going to increasingly realize that Hillary isn't a wise choice for nominee. They're going to be looking for a better alternative, and one that can win quickly in order to stop her. Edwards is the obvious choice.

[Clark2008]

104. With all due respect to Democrats everywhere:

THIS ISN'T 1992!

/rant

[Emit]

87. No.

It's because they want her to run.

[mtnsnake]

88. I hear that so often that I think it's getting to be an excuse

It's because they want her to run.

I suppose "they" to you is either corporate America, TV, or Diebold. "They" to me are the actual Democrats being polled in national polls who don't happen to reflect the prevailing mood on this forum. Because the polls don't say what you'd like them to say, are you implying that they're not realistic....or legit?

[Emit]

108. No.

They means the Bush supporters who call themselves conservative Republicans, and their media that they worship -- Rush, Newsmax, etc. They push Hillary more than I see any Dems doing.

I wasn't even referring to any polls whatsoever, although, since I do get all the right-wing stuff from posting on another open discussion board where I encounter the Bushbots (PBS NOW Politics and Economy Discussion Boards), I do read and listen to what those on the 'right' are saying. They can't get enough of Hillary -- in an odd way that I have a hard time describing.

Also, some of the info they've posted recently were polls reflecting poorly on Hillary. I don't recall the source, 'cause I doubt I even clicked on the link at the time. I don't even really know how she's polling.

I meant no disrespect.

[oc2002]

89. I will not vote for Hillary or Obama.

They are both sellouts of the DLC branch of the RNC.

[mtnsnake]

92. "They are both sellouts of the DLC branch of the RNC" No, your the sellout

Don't let the door hit ya...

[Capn Sunshine]

105. If you like the DLC , fine. Say so, like in the OP

So we can immediately dismiss anything you have to say as disingenuous, like that Hillary is the only one crap.

God, does Ken Melman call you every Thursday?

They would LOVE Hillary to run, they have planned for it since 2000 and it would be a polarizing event to bring the stay home former republicans out.

[mtnsnake]

111. That's about the dumbest, most UN-relevant post I've ever read

...and to think that's the kind of reply I get for QUOTING someone else who mentioned the DLC.

I am not a DLC lover nor hater, but I will say this: Democrat haters like yourself have got to be the most PARANOID people on the face of the earth and you never have anything to offer but negative lockstep WHINING, PISSING, MOANING, AND COMPLAINING.

[JNelson6563]

91. Gore

He's already won once and he's much wiser now, he'd rock!

[AtomicKitten]

94. he sure would

Gore/Obama would kick ass

[nan]

96. Hillary isn't leading in the polls

John Edwards is, as has been cited above. It's all about name recognition, money and Faux News for Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

98. Edwards leads in a poll of most "acceptable" candidates, not in polls

of Democratic candidates most likely to win the nomination. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[MeanBone]

103. Edwards is beating her outright in Iowa.

And that's where it matters most. Also, his favorables there are significantly better than hers, which matters in a caucus because some people have to support their second choice if their top pick doesn't have at least 15% support in that particular precinct. Also, his campaign staff from 2004 is intact and ready to go.

[Radical Activist]

97. She has name recognition and money.

That's the only reason she's top in the polls. Lieberman was leading the polls at this point in the last Presidential cycle and he tanked big time.

I think we have a number of more electable candidates such as Edwards, Gore, a couple dozen other Democrats and my pet cat. Yes, even my cat is more electable than Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

99. Gore, yes, Edwards, no way

I think Al Gore COULD be more electable, but as far as I know, he hasn't made himself a candidate, and he's gone as far as ruling himself out from being even a potential candidate. Just the same, Gore could be the only Dem I can think of who MIGHT be more electable than Clinton with the exception of Barack Obama, who I think 90% of the posters on this forum highly underrate.

[benny05]

106. I'd like borrow that line about your cat n/t

:rofl:

[Radical Activist]

109. I was tempted to make a poll

Hillary v. my cat for President. However, it would only be a flame war and I already know who would win...my cat.

[lojasmo]

102. Gore or Feingold

Hillary will lose in the generals if she gets the nomination. Mark my words. I said the same thing of Kerry in May, 2003 I'm calling it on Hillary on 7/24/2006

"Electability" is a crap concept.

[saltpoint]

107. Big Obama fan here. Anybody who talk the way you do about

Senator Obama has more than earned a cold beer.

I'm buyin'.

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

[KoKo]

110. It's TOO EARLY and the M$M is trying to Pick our Dem Candidates for US!

Leave it....as "fantasy picks" for the future, if you will...but the M$M
deciding our Dem Candidates once again shows we "haven't learned" from the PAST!