Time Poll: Hillary's Negatives Are Lower Than Either Gore's Or Kerry's

[ruggerson]

This is what a lot of us here have been saying for a while. If we wish to win in '08, Kerry or Gore is not the way to do it. They are both terrific men, but the political reality is that they are not our strongest candidates. Hillary is by no means my first choice, but running someone who has been on the top of the ticket and has already lost is a recipe for disaster.

That's reality folks. And no, 2008 isn't a lifetime away. It's just around the corner.

Hopefully, a strong dark horse will emerge and take our party and the country by storm.



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1229054,00.html

"And there is plenty of encouraging news for her in the latest Time poll. More than half of those surveyed—53% —said they had a favorable impression of her; she registered higher than the other most familiar names in the potential Democratic field, Al Gore (49% ), John Edwards (46% ) and John Kerry (45% ). Her negative ratings (44% ) were lower than either Kerry's or Gore's. Edwards generated fewer negative reviews (31% ), but 23% of those polled said they didn't know enough about him to have an opinion one way or the other. In hypothetical matchups with the preseason g.o.p. favorite, John McCain, Hillary is the only big-name Democrat to make a real race of it, with McCain edging her by just 2 points among registered voters. By comparison, McCain would trounce Kerry by 10 points and Gore by 9."

[lastknowngood]

1. NO woman can win in America. When will we stop letting the media

and the repugs choose our candidates?

[pnwmom]

5. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Women have been elected prime minister in Asian countries, Muslim countries, and even in other Democratic western countries. But it's just not possible, for some reason, in America.

:sarcasm:

[treestar]

33. That's a good point. If India can have a woman leader, or

Pakistan (and Muslims have very old fashioned views of the role of women) then it is absurd to say that the US cannot do it.

Of course Rush Limbaugh will pitch a fit, but those individuals who respond to that RW crap will not be voting for a Democrat anyway, male or female.

[fuzzyball]

47. Yes, Britain, Israel, India, Sri Lanka all had women heads of state.

[oasis]

15. NO Catholic can win in America. (eom)

[Patchuli]

50. That's odd, JFK won nt

[oasis]

57. See post #1 and #56. It will become clearer.(eom)

[Zynx]

72. That's actually the very point.

[mucho macho]

90. Won what??

Is he President now???? We need to run a PROGRESSIVE..............DEAN !!!

[NYCGirl]

93. The presidency in 1960. John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic president.

Have you forgotten?

[Patchuli]

95. I was referring to John Fitzgerald Kennedy,

NOT John Forbes Kerry.

BTW, Dean is our DNC Chairman. We need Al Gore for our president.

[oasis]

56. NO black woman will ever be Secretary of State. (eom)

[iwannadem]

2. i agree

running someone who has been on the top of the ticket and has already lost is a recipe for disaster.
I support DEAN,Feingold ,or holding my nose, HILLARY. Anybody but CHENEY

[Radical Activist]

Sounds like an outlier poll

I haven't seen any others that confirm those numbers.

[INdemo]

3. This just doesn't make any sense

I imagine there were a large percentage of Repukes in this poll..
They want Hillary to win because that gives them a better chance of winning..

[TheWraith]

That makes less than zero sense.

If there were many Republicans in the poll, her negatives would be higher. Do you really think that all Republicans polled engaged in a conspiracy to say nice things about her in an effort to improve the chances that she'll run for president in 2008? That's an pretty nice tin-foil hat you've got there.

[SaveElmer]

26. It makes perfect sense...and is consistent

With past polling.

DU, and the liberal bloosphere are simply not representative of the Democratic rank and file. Not unimportant, but not an accurate reflection of it either.

[Nictuku]

4. Gore did not lose. (NT)

[pnwmom]

6. Unfortunately, he didn't fight when it counted.

[Larkspur]

7. Yes, he did. He fought for 36 days after the election until SCOTUS

intervened and chose Bush for Prez.

Gore was not interested in starting a civil war and he thought that the Dems in Congress would play the loyal opposition to Bush. But they didn't. In Sep 2002, Gore officially broke from the DLC mantra and came out and opposed the proposed Iraq War. That led to more rousing speeches sponsored by MoveOn.org.

Any Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, is #1 on the NY Bestsellers' list.

[pnwmom]

11. I, for one, remember being frustrated in those 36 days at how little

Gore was doing to protest all the delays that were going on. The whole process was deliberately strung out and he was much too patient.

Also, he should have demanded a full state recount, not a partial.

And what was with that premature concession?

He should have been protesting much more loudly and forcefully, right from the beginning, as the Republicans in Washington state were doing during our recent close gubernatorial election (which the Democrat fairly won.)

[blm]

25. Not Gore's fault on that - the Dem PARTY legal election team are the ones

who end up being in charge at that point.

It's their job to evaluate and pursue every legal angle at that point and give Gore or Kerry or the next nominee the best assessment of each situation presented.

I think we, the DNC, need a crack legal team who is EDUCATED in the real election fraud that the RNC pursues on a DAILY BASIS for four years, not just one that comes up to bat only around election day.

[pnwmom]

44. Are you saying they can put a muzzle on the candidate?

Gore could have been using his moment in the spotlight in a more productive way.

I like him better now. But at the time I felt like he was letting us all down by failing to show more leadership.

[blm]

62. I'm in the crowd who believes he should've guided the Dem PARTY to deal

with election fraud in the most scrutinized way after 2000. That way, when BushInc added rigged voting machines to their program in 2002, more of the country would be aware of it than a few thousand of us on the internet, and a task force would have already been in place to address it.

The bill NOW in the senate and the house for verifiable voting is OK, but I'd prefer to see a movement completely AWAY from machines and back to simple paper with a every precinct being counted in front of a couple video cameras. More accurate and inexpensive. I am disappointed that Kerry hasn't vigorously pursued the call for paper ballots, as I don't trust that the senate bill for verified voting he co-sponsored will sufficiently protect the votes.

The Dems need a REAL task force to counter the DAILY EXERCISES the RNC goes through to steal elections. They work at it every day for four years. Our election legal teams only crank up for a fraction of that time, and were never schooled in the type of machine fraud and other vote-stealing techniques BushInc uses.

[pnwmom]

79. I agree completely. Once Gore knew how they operated, he should

have been in the forefront, advocating immediate reform. Instead, he was too worried about being portrayed as a "poor loser."

Also, I agree with the paper ballots. If they can do it in Canada, they can do it here.

[IndianaGreen]

9. It was "Judas" Joe Liberman that threw in the towel

Gore is the perfect candidate.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Oh, please! Time-Warner wants Hillary to be our nomine!

Don't you get it? The GOP wants us to commit mass suicide by nominating the one candidate that will shake Republican and independent voters out of their stupor, and that is by having the Democrats nominate the most polarizing candidate possible.

Hillary's national security credentials consists of supporting Bush's war in Iraq, and the neocon dreams of wars against Syria and Lebanon.

The perilous times that our nation faces demand we nominate a grown up and not some chicken hawk like Hillary.

[ruggerson]

13. So the executives at Time Warner, Hillaryites all, fixed the poll

is that what you're trying to tell us?

[Uncle Joe]

85. No they fixed or brainwashed the American People,

with a two year war against Al Gore's credibility and integrity with slander and lie, all because he empowered you when he championed the internet thereby taking some of their power away from being the sole gatekeepers to the truth. Anyone receiving such treatment from the mass corporate media will have their negatives go up. The question is, will we reward such treason against the people from our so called fourth estate? Not me!

[wisteria]

66. I couldn't of said it better myself. n/t

[bahrbearian]

10. McCain would trounce Kerry and Gore ,,,, Sure LOL

MSM poll .

[blm]

18. Yeah - like Bush trounced Kerry in the debates. McCain would have to rig

voting machines and suppress Dem voters, too, after his 3 debates against Kerry or Gore.

[EST]

12. As the republiclowns sink into the cesspool

of their own incompetence, their biggest hope lies in influencing the democratic choices. Hillary is not well liked by nearly all republiclowns and a huge portion of dems. She invites disagreement and dissent--not a good mix for a chief executive.

If she, by some quirk of fate, became president, the pukes would be overjoyed with four years to bash her and the democrats, all the while doing everything in their power to discredit and disempower her, rendering her a totally ineffective figure. My self abusive streak, or whatever it is, leads me to actually like her but I will not support her in a bid for prez.

[guidod]

19. I think you're right...

...but the repukes are going to do that to whatever dem wins as President. :dem:

[nealmhughes]

14. So, Time-Warner says only HRC can defeat John McCain against

only Kerry or Gore? Gee, I wonder what group -- dare I type it? -- has been hyping that for two years now? Ummhmm, yeah, right, HRC was REALLY a liberal all along, the only thing better than NAFTA saving US union jobs has been CAFTA, too, I suppose. And now a yea "really" means a nay, with no apologies for the first "yea," when there have been those who were against the BushCo Iraq Adventure for Jump Street.
With a true one-on-one, Gore, Edwards or the unnamed "dark horse" (come now, his name is Clark, and he isn't very dark, in reality) would dance circles around McCain. They simply have what the people want to hear and the background to attack him or any other Republican candidate for Iraq alone, the only bona fides McCain would have would be McCain-Feingold and the McCain antitorture bill. The ultra Righteous Right would Hanoi Hilton him so rapidly that he would have a stroke or a breakdown -- do not for a moment think they would not stoop to do so, as they tried it before, BushCo hates McCain. Katrina birthday cake, aside, it is not even a marriage of convenience, rather a momentary cease fire since the establishment itself is under fire with the resurgence of independent non-rapturing Republicans.
We have so many good presidential/vp candidates out there: why does the media keep telling us we want HRC? The center left/left of the party is swinging it back to our true DEMOS root, and that is Greek for people, folks, corporation should be erased from our vocabulary, except when used in conjunction of "corporate welfare" and "corporate theft of pension funds."
The events in Seattle a few years ago seems shocking to most, now it is nearly mainstream, minus the Molotov cocktails and tear gas. Iraq was our bestest bestest friend after SA, Egypt and Israel east of the Bosphorus... now Israel has caused the people of the US a moral panic over the destruction of Lebanon, Jordan is just there, caught between Iraq and Israel, and Egypt is still our best hope that Islamic fundamentalism does not take root there, and with 100 million people, were Egypt to simply start advancing towards Tel Aviv with stones and sharp pointy sticks, there would not be enough bombs or bullets to stop the Israeli cabinet from being forced to wade into the Mediterranean for the final boat out...Iraq is in a full civil war (I don't care what the government or the pundits try to parse, when death squads roam seeking out the Alis from the Hashems, when a 100 person death toll is no longer "breaking news,") then neo-conservatism and their enablers are through.
Can a leopard change its spots? Only with public penance and humility and sincerity, I fear, Mrs. Clinton, only with public penanace, and I do not see you wearing the sheet and standing on the church steps on a chair right now wearing the sign of shame.

[blm]

16. Except Gore and Kerry are being polled now through only the negative spin

that has been against them since each ran. Try having a few debates and let the American people hear some more truth they weren't recognizing back when it was being said by either of them, and you'll have a different outcome.

McCain couldn't win debates with Kerry. The public will see it for themselves. McCain is getting by what people THINK he is about right now, but could NOT when matched with someone who clearly outlogics him on EVERY ISSUE.

[ruggerson]

20. Kerry won all three debates with Bush

two of them were outright slaughters.

And guess who got elected.

[blm]

24. Yes, McCain would have to resort to rigging machines and suppressing votes

for Dems because he will lose the debates, too.

Do you think the Dem party infrastructure is strong enough today to counter the RNC tactics that are being employed every day in their quest to prevail in 2008?

[wisteria]

68. You can not compare that election with all the manipulation and the

fear of attack to the one in the future. In fact, if you go back in time to around 2003 when the press was again playing games with the the populace, Lieberman was out front -in the lead. A Hillary run would be fascinating for all the press it would generate and all the papers and books it would sell- they are keeping her name alive just for that purpose. The media has absolutely no concern at all about America. It is all about money and talking about Senator Clinton brings them in money.

[AtomicKitten]

17. I would take most of these polls with a grain of salt.

And with the knowledge that the GOP Wrecking Machine will annihilate whomever we put up. I think it will be tough for Hillary in particular because she is a woman and because she is Mrs. Blow Job. Some Republicans will never move beyond the latter. The GOP worked long and hard on instilling that negative response. I think Kerry's problems with the Swift Boat Liars should have been nipped in the bud from the get-go and are perhaps something he may never recover from. Letting it slide fixated their sordid albeit false tale in people's minds. I think Gore has an excellent shot for many reasons, including the fact that the 2000 judicial coup d'etat was so unfair he may be lifted up by the desire for a do-over.

But who the hell knows. We're all just guessing here. We'll sort it out in the primaries. :)

[ruggerson]

22. True

And I still think we're better off with a governor or someone who had almost no record in the Senate (Edwards). I think Edwards, Warner, Schweitzer, would have an easier time defeating McCain as they could frame the race as the future vs. the past.

[Peregrine]

21. JFK was the last Senator to be elected president

Since then the Republicans have nominated 0 senators and the Democrats have nominated 5.

Whe asked how he could for president when he had no record in the Senate, JFK replied that he could run because he had no record in the Senate.

McCain my look tough, but like Gore and Kerry he has a Senate record to defend. And when you vote against bills because of a rider, opponents can make it look like you were against the main part of the bill. Just like all of those Democrats voted against the minimum wage bill, a bunch of flip-floppers. If the Dems can get control of the Senate this year, then they can set these type of traps.

And about Hilary. The Republicans won't have to say anything, the media on its own will replay Filegate, travelgate, Rose law firm, Whitewater, Monica ... The MSM will be so full of white noise, that Hilary won't be heard.

[brentspeak]

23. And even JFK's victory was dubious

Rumors of voter fraud, organized by Joe Sr., persist to this day.

Hillary should forget about the WH and stick to the Senate, where she'll win easy reelection.

[SaveElmer]

27. Actually, the fraud rumors were about the vote in Illinois...

Which if you switched to the Nixon column would not have affected the outcome. JFK would still have won.

Plenty of rumors of Republican shenanigans in the same election...

[Hippo_Tron]

99. And can you honestly tell me that Nixon wasn't committing fraud?

Besides, even without Illinois, Kennedy still won the electoral college.

[fuzzyball]

103. Cook county votes under mayor Daley was responsible for JFK victory

:shrug:

[blm]

29. Corpmedia would attack ANY Dem, even former General Gov. Jesus Christ

It doesn't matter whether a candidate is a senator or not. The old conventional wisdoms went out the door the day the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated and corporate war profiteers bought control of the broadcast news media and have been busily adding the print media, as well.

[SaveElmer]

28. To those opposing Hillary...

Who I suppose will not take seriously my advice to them seeing as I am a rock solid supporter of a Hillary Presidential run...

However, if you are intent on stopping her, get your head out of the sand...

Instead of denying her popularity and poo pooing every single poll which reflects that popularity, man up, recognize it for what it is and fight it on that basis...

[Clark2008]

49. If she's so damn popular, why don't I know a soul who plans

to vote for her in the primaries?

And I know tons of Democrats across my state from having worked in both the Clark campaign and now the Ford Jr. campaign.

I think it depends on where you live and red staters don't want to waste their vote on her, knowing she doesn't have a shot of flipping their state.

[SaveElmer]

63. Ahhh...a golden oldie...

"I don't know anyone who is supporting her so she must be unpopular"

I guess they are polling Canadians....

I interact with Democrats all across my county, in what could be described as a light blue area of a red state, and I get numerous positive comments on a potential Hillary run. Many I interact with are extremely excited about the potential of a woman President, and they think Hillary is that woman.

[wisteria]

69. She is a known commodity, that does equate to being liked or even

being likable. These polls represent not her likability as much as recognition of her. She also is able to ride President Clinton's coat tails. Frankly, I think she wants to be President for all the wrong reasons, and I hope I never even have to make the choice to vote for or against Hillary.

[SaveElmer]

80. Hey fine with me...

You'd think people would learn not to underestimate the Clintons after having been burned so many times...but as a strong supporter of a Clinton Presidential run I am perfectly happy to have he opponents bury their heads in the sand!

[Greyhound]

30. Yea! She sucks less, that'll be a winning slogan.

:eyes:

[zulchzulu]

31. If we wish to win in '08, Kerry is certainly a way to do it

I'm not convinced McCain would "trounce" Kerry by any means since he won't get the nomination for the Repugs in the first place.

While I would support any Dem against a Repug in 2008, I still have lots of hope for Kerry to get the nomination AND WIN (like he already did)...

[MH1]

35. Agreed.

I will support any Dem who wins the nomination but there are a lot of reasons to consider Kerry a viable choice, and he is the one that I trust the most to do what needs to be done.

I found these great quotes the other day; pretty much sums it up for me:

from Lucy Komisar, The Senator Who Exposed The Criminal Bankers
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0411a/kerrybcci.html

Kerry's experience fighting the Washington establishment over BCCI gave him a profound education in the workings of the insider Washington power and corruption that support corporate and organized crime and weaken the country's ability to counter terrorism. He showed that he has what it takes to stand up to the big-money special interests that don't want the system to change.

During this presidential campaign, Kerry talked a lot about his service in Vietnam, but he didn't take credit now for exposing BCCI, perhaps because he thought it was too complicated for the American public to understand the scandal. Yet, more than physical courage, what the U.S. needs is guts and smarts and the resolution and courage to fight scourges that range from terrorism to international crime to corporate corruption and tax evasion.

Jack Blum, who was not involved in the Kerry campaign, says: "There has never been a guy who has run for president who has, hands-on, known the kinds of substantive things he knows about the world of international crime, about banking and international bank regulation and finance, about the interconnectedness of the world finance system and how various intelligence agencies play into it. He is uniquely qualified."

from Robert Parry, Kerry's Contra Cocaine Investigation
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0411a/kerrycontracocaine.html

In the end, investigations by government inspectors general corroborated Kerry's 1989 findings and vindicated his effort. But the muted conclusion of the Contra-cocaine controversy 12 years after Kerry began his investigation explains why this chapter is an overlooked -- though important -- episode in Kerry's Senate career. It's a classic case of why, in Washington, there's little honor in being right too soon. Yet it's also a story about a senator who had the personal honor to do the right thing.

This stuff still matters, and it shows Kerry is highly qualified and willing to stick his neck out and get something done even when his own party is against him.

[zulchzulu]

37. It's amazing when honest truth is laid out so well

Ad hominen attacks on Kerry make those who banter such childness feel "good", but the truth about the man is all I need to have hope he will be President...and I plan on working hard toward that goal.

[ruggerson]

38. Ad hominem attacks on Kerry?

Where?

[wisteria]

70. I certainly like the way you think! Kerry all the way for me! n/t

[treestar]

32. Why is it disastrous if they didn't win before?

That one still doesn't make sense to me.

They have experience running. They can use that to their advantage.

All the dirt has already been thrown at them. What else are they going to dig up? True they will dig up something new each day but the main parts of their pasts have already been put through the wringer.

And the fact Kerry actually saw combat should have made him hard for the "war president" with no war experience to beat, and how that his popularity is down that could do it, though of course it has to be someone else, but do the repubs have anyone who actually went to Vietnam that is willing to run?

[Patchuli]

52. ? McCain was a POW in the Hanoi Hilton

for 7 years.

That said, I don't necessarily think that combat experience is necessary to be a president but it sure is a good thing to have if you are going to engage in wars. If * had actually served in the military and not his excuse of NG (and not finishing that at that), he would not have been so eager to "shock and awe" Iraq.

[treestar]

64. Is there anyone other than McCain?

I don't think they need combat experience either. But then with * claiming to be the war president and all that it seemed pretty ironic. Kerry should have been able to make * look like an idiot on that and it just shows how evil Rove and co. are that they would put down a man's military service at the same time they are claiming that not supporting their war is not supporting the troops, etc.

[Patchuli]

81. That's because they live in backasswards world

Where chickenhawks want to fight and fighters want peace. Black is white, peace is war, etc. I'm just happy to see the multitudes they fooled for so long waking up and asking "What happened? How'd we get in these messes?!"

It's cold comfort to have them now tell us, "You were right! They're bad guys!"

[wisteria]

73. McCain never saw very little battle. He was a pilot as was shot down.

He surely suffered as a POW, which would make him an expert on POW, but not necessarily on combat and fighting wars. Just take a look at his recent stands on Iraq.

[mucho macho]

86. I DISAGREE

IF MILITARY EXPERIENCE IS A GOOD THING, THEN HILLARY WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT AND BILL WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ELECTED. I DONT THINK MIL EXPERIENCE IS NECESSARY AT ALL.

[BootinUp]

34. If any party runs someone with a 44% negative rating

I hope they don't expect to win.

[pnwmom]

45. ANYONE we run will have a 44% negative rating, at least, by the

time they've been through a couple months of Swiftboating by the Repubs. It could be that Hillary's already taken her knocks. The ones that are going to hate her, already do.

[BootinUp]

58. I'm not impressed

with your wishful thinking.

[pnwmom]

59. You think it's wishful thinking to say that anyone we put up

will be attacked by the Repub slime machine?

[BootinUp]

76. You dismiss

high negatives by suggesting its normal i.e. anyone will have negatives that high after running a race. That is clearly a falsehood as plenty of candidates in high profile political races escape without negatives like that. A negative means people have a particular dislike not that one candidate is merely preferred over another.

I think its wishful to imagine that 44% negative ratings are not death to a campaign for election.

[pnwmom]

77. A presidential election is not just any high profile race.

The Republicans haven't had the money to attack every Democrat in every high profile race. But they are guaranteed to attack ANY Democratic candidate that we run for President, and it would be easy for them build up negative ratings since they have no compunction against lying, and the media is willing to help them.

[wisteria]

74. For some candidates negatives turn into positives and visa versa.

Kerry's and Gore's negatives are based on unfamiliarity, apprehension over their losses and Re pubs spin, that may not matter much by 08.

[pnwmom]

78. Their negatives are based on unfamiliarity? Huh?

[mucho macho]

87. bILL cLINTON

Bill sure turned his negatives (womanizing, no military,small state, etc) into positives and became a DAMN good prez.

[sendero]

36. Yeah..

.... I really trust the polls designed and implemented by media outlets who have a solid history of SABOTAGING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY EVERY CHANCE THEY GET.

Some of you people are really thick. The RW noise machine is working in hyperdrive to get Hillary nominated so they can absolutely crush any chance of a Dem winning the presidency in 2008.

[ruggerson]

39. So you think there are a band of rightwingers at Time Warner

who meet in great secrecy, rub their hands together gleefully and manufacture bogus polls designed to pump Hillary up, in the belief that she is so unelectable, that it will aid whomever the Republican candidate is in '08.

Is this the entire board of Time Warner or just selected corporate officers. Care to give us the names of the people in on this conspiracy?

[sendero]

40. Oh no..

.. I think all media are 100% objective. Time Warner is the greatest, and so is News Corp.

They go out of their way to be fair and non-partisan. They are always bringing the failures of the Bush Administration to the public. /sarcasm off

I can make any poll say anything I want it to say, and if you know jack squat about polling you understand that. And if you think that there aren't Rove's minions working in every major media outlet in this country, I think you are wrong there too.

Forget this poll, the media cheerleading for HRC has been going on for months. And the minute, the MINUTE she is nominated, it will be Vince Foster, TravelGate/FileGate/MonicaGate 24/7.

You wait and see.

[ruggerson]

41. You didn't answer my question

who on the board of Time/Warner is in on this? Who is responsible for this plot?

[sendero]

42. Who is responsible..

... for the fact that RW talking points get repeated VERBATIM every day in unison on every major TV news outlet in the country?

[ruggerson]

43. Can't you speak plain English?

Answer the damn question. If you propound the notion that this media plot exists, give us names.

[wisteria]

75. Time/Warner is now a very conservative leaning magazine. I dropped

it a couple of years ago when I noticed they were reporting positively on many things relative to the Republican POV and either ignoring or discrediting much of what Democrats said. They are a corporation,and they have a vested interest in a desired outcome. They want to make as much money as possible, exploiting Hillary for all she is worth.
Polls can be easily manipulated and they can be very wrong. There are too many unknown variables not presented to us in this polling to actually take it seriously- especially this far out.
And, besides that, no poll is going to every convince me to go along for the Hillary ride. I make up my own mind. I don't care if Time/warner says she is popular or not. I do not and will not believe she is want our party needs in 08.

[ruggerson]

94. With all due respect

I'm completely uninterested in your personal opinion of Time Warner. I wanted to know from sendero the names of the people there he maintains are orchestrating this rightwing plot to fix polls.

So far.... nada.

[CrushTheDLC]

48. Right wingers at Time/Warner? Don't be ridiculous...

I mean they only have had Colin Powell and NRA president/insane hasbeen Charlton Heston on their board of directors. CNN took a hard right turn the minute Turner merged with them and is now arguably fascist as FAUX, and their parent company (AOL) has long been rumored to have CIA ties.

But of course, no right wingers here, nope nothin to see.... move along....

[ruggerson]

51. Time Warner Board

Richard D. Parsons
Chairman of the Board and CEO, Time Warner Inc.


James L. Barksdale
Chairman and President, Barksdale Management Corporation


Stephen F. Bollenbach
Co-Chairman and CEO, Hilton Hotels Corporation


Frank J. Caufield
Co-Founder and General Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCP)


Robert C. Clark
Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University


Jessica P. Einhorn
Dean, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University


Reuben Mark
Chairman and CEO, Colgate-Palmolive Company

Michael A. Miles
Special Limited Partner, Forstmann Little & Company


Kenneth J. Novack
Senior Counsel, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC


Mathias Döpfner
Chairman, CEO and Head of the Newspapers Division, Axel Springer AG


Francis T. Vincent, Jr.
Chairman, Vincent Enterprises


Deborah C. Wright
Chairman, President and CEO, Carver Bancorp, Inc. and Carver Federal Savings Bank

[ruggerson]

54. Please tell us when Heston was on the Board of Time Warner

thanks.

[CrushTheDLC]

55. Remember Ice T's "Body Count" album?

Remember old Moses himself reading off the lyrics to "Cop Killer" at the Time Warner board meeting and demanding the song be deleted from the album, which it was.

[ruggerson]

71. You couldn't be more wrong

Heston went to a stockholder's meeting (open to shareholders) and publicly protested the song. He was not on their board of directors then, he is not on it now.

This is exactly the type of shit that flies around DU that makes reasonable debate here almost impossible.

[mucho macho]

88. you are correct.

[blm]

67. Large shareholder in AOL is House of Saud - a great ally to House of Bush

AOL inflated its numbers ala Enron to facilitate a takeover of Time Waner/CNN. Then, when it was discovered, they only got a slap on the wrist for it and allowed to keep everything they swindled while they were using the bogus numbers.

THAT wouldn't have happened if they were a Democratic company - Martha Stewart got reamed for 1/10000000th of what AOL pulled.

[mmonk]

46. That's the opinion of Time readers most likely.

I wouldn't take anything from it to the bank.

[tyedyeto]

53. Hillary is tied to Bill...

and I don't think she can overcome the Rush, O'Lielley gang of thugs that led to the Big Dog's impeachment.

IMHO, just a day or two after the 2004 election, she was announced as the 'frontrunner' for 2008 elections... way too early. I don't see her as the 3008 candidate.

[pnwmom]

60. Me neither. She'll probably be too old in 3008.

:hi:

[robcon]

61. Hillary Clinton will be the next president.

She's a great campaigner, and she can beat any Repug they can come up with.

[wisteria]

65. I am sticking with Kerry. This isn't a poll as much as a popularity

and name recognition poll. I find it very hard to believe that people like her more than Kerry or Gore. Reasonable people will make up their minds when the season begins. At this point this is the media playing around with our heads. I will not change my opinion on Senator Clinton based on a far out poll. I don't care for her demeanor, I don't think of her as a leader and I don't think she has any vision for this country. I have witnessed her making all the wrong moves instead of the right ones.

[robcon]

82. So, when a poll disagrees with your preferred outcome...

it's a "popularity contest and name recognition" contest.

Does that mean Kerry and Gore aren't well known?

How convenient to be able to compartmentalize.

[mucho macho]

89. im for DEAN

Im for DEAN. I will not change my opinion on Senator Clinton based on a far out poll. I don't care for her demeanor, I don't think of her as a leader and I don't think she has any vision for this country. I have witnessed her making all the wrong moves instead of the right ones.If we lose in 2008 we will be in DEEP doodoo. We need a WINNER ,a REAL progressive, Like DEAN !!

[mucho macho]

91. Kerrys reputation

Kerry IMHO, would not make a good president. Heres why (And he has already lost once, a political anchor.)

Leadership isn't about smiling for the cameras and helping friends, not necessarily and not per se.

Leadership means unilateral action, it means you take a stand against that which isn't right, but more importantly, you fight for that which is. Social programs are a losing message to most Americans. Welfare Reform passed not because of some "evil cooperation with rich Republicans" it passed because it was necessary to prevent rampant abuse of the system.

Kerry is an over-polished hamfisted leader-of-default. Bush is Hideous -- it's a freak show to go to one of his town meetings, but he at least feels his audience and is playful. (YUK)

Kerry has the manner of a mortician.And is thought of by many americans as a whining,rich-boy ,spoiled brat dullard. My God, he even talks about himself in the THIRD person !

And his politics are at least as stale.

The only 'progressive' issue he's aligned himself with seriously was HillaryCare, and that petered out because everyone could see it would be a massive debacle -- that the Republicans would probably game through their corporate ownership groups.

Kerry is doing plenty, but what he is doing is not working, has not worked,will never work and hence for whatever plenty he's involved in, it isn't enough.


WE NEED DEAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A REAL PROGRESSIVE

[karynnj]

96. This is filled with misinformation

I think I smell a troll - Bush "least feels his audience and is playful"

Kerry has never spoken of himself in third person

Kerry was never a whining,rich-boy ,spoiled brat dullard, Bush was and is. - spoiled brats don't spend nearly 4 years in the Navy and over 25 years in public service. As to dullard - if you watched even one debate - he was brilliant. Even as a 27 year old kid he knew more about how the government worked and the issues relating to Vietnam and veterans issues. What is clear is that he has spent years learning and proposing solutions to this countries problems.

Kerry's proposals on how we can get out of Iraq, national security (where he was nearly alone in the 90s demanding that our security be improved.), the environment and health care are well thought out and fresh.

Kerry was never one of the proponents of HillaryCare - he and Kennedy wrote legislation that was the precursor to S-Chip which insures many poor children. Hillary called it the biggest improvement in government health insurance in her book where it is listed as a Clinton administration accomplishment.

Leadership means unilateral action, it means you take a stand against that which isn't right, but more importantly, you fight for that which is. - Kerry fought GHWB and the Republican and the Democratic leadership - and took his infrmation to a NYC DA to close a corrupt, drug laundering bank that was facilitating the terrorists in moving money and communications. BCCI had "bought" people high in both parties - Kerry chose to fight.

I like both Kerry and Dean - but Dean is the more moderate of the two. Kerry is more progressive and liberal.

[mucho macho]

101. reply

simply because I have a different opinion than yours does not make me a troll. Is everyone who disagrees (with you) a troll???

[T_i_B]

83. Hillary's star is finally rising, says Time poll

I'm glad someone beat me to this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1854755,00.html

Hillary Clinton is finally gaining a toehold with American voters, according to a new poll that puts her almost at level pegging for the presidency with the current Republican favourite, John McCain.

Months of polls have suggested the New York senator would lose the 2008 White House race badly if she won the Democratic nomination. But Time magazine's survey puts her just two percentage points below Mr McCain, with 47% to his 49% - within the poll's margin of error.

Mr McCain would trounce two other potential Democratic candidates, John Kerry and Al Gore. A poll in June said that 47% would never vote for Ms Clinton, who has been accused of projecting a cold persona, and who is a symbol of the cultural divisions over her husband's presidency.

The latest poll will help counteract the pessimistic conventional wisdom emerging among Democrats, which is that Ms Clinton might be unbeatable at the nomination stage but unelectable at the national level. More than half of those questioned said they had a positive view of her.

[wisteria]

98. The media is making it rise. She has not done anything to warrant

this type of hype. He star had risen when she was First Lady. She is a first term Jr Senator from NY- a fairly unchallenged political novice. He husband runs don't count.
I ask again, what has she done or accomplished to warrant these accolades?

[hijinx87]

84. Beware the MSM

right after they get done building her up, they will bring her
down.

they love to destroy what they think are their own creations.

[AtomicKitten]

92. A new poll finds Gore trails HRC by 5-points

Excerpt:
Most Americans agree that Hillary Clinton is intelligent (81%) and that she's politically moderate (67%). She's the Democratic nominee they'd support the most if she runs for President (leading the field with 46%, just ahead of Al Gore's 41). And a majority (53%) agree that she makes a generally favorable impression. They don't agree on much else.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1229053,00.html

[MessiahRp]

97. The media continues to pick our candidate for us...

I am pretty certain that the way things are going, Dems are not going to want Hillary and her flip flopping, right wing pandering stances as our candidate in 2008...

Nice of the Republicans and the Right Wing Media to choose their opponent by pushing her onto us.

Rp

[Hippo_Tron]

100. In case we've forgotten, Iowa and New Hampshire choose our nominee

And now apparently Nevada and South Carolina do as well. My point is that national polls are fun to talk about but they don't mean shit especially this early. We are going to have a deep bench of qualified candidates in 2008 and it's really still anybody's ballgame at this point.

[geiger]

102. Hillary will not be elected because of her support for the war,

nothing more or less. All the other "issues" will have melted to the side (may have already, witness the demise of Liebermann) by then.