2008 General Election Choice: Chuck Hagel vs Hillary Clinton

[zulchzulu]

Would you vote for a Republican or a...

[Ignacio Upton]

I'd still vote for Hillary

But she's will get CREAMED if Hagel is the GOP nominee. The only way she'll win is if they nominate someone so horribly right-wing (Brownback, Gingrich, Tancredo) or extremely corrupt (Giuliani.)

[clarquistador]

1. I voted for Hagel because he is more liberal. LOL! n/t

[ProSense]

Can you say

wingnut?

[TwilightZone]

19. Wrong.

http://issues2000.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Chuck's very conservative. A change of heart on one issue does not a liberal make.

[Alexander]

22. I think clarquistador was joking.

[TwilightZone]

29. Unfortunately, many people seem to think it's the truth.

n/t

[AndreaCG]

27. Chuck owns or owned

One of the voting machine companies. E S & S IIRC. He fucked around with them to get reelected.

Any Democrat here who chooses him is extremely deluded.

[thatsrightimirish]

2. Hillary

The Supreme Court people!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Hold nose, vote for Hillary.

--even though Hagel actually has been more critical of the Iraq mess than Ms. DLClinton. Hagel seems reasonable but he's actually extremely conservative. All I can say in his favor is that he's probably the least insane of the likely Repub candidates, which isn't saying much. And Hillary is one of the more unsatisfactory Dems, along with fellow DLCers Biden, Bayh and Vislack. I hope it doesn't come to that choice.

[Alexander]

4. I think the votes for Clinton are actually going to Hagel instead.

I imagine we'd have a similar problem in such a presidential matchup.

The only other possible explanation is that there are more freepers voting in our polls than was previously thought.

[The Count]

11. Could be them voting machines he owns

If Hillary is the choice, i may or may not stay home - but

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO I VOTE REPUBLICAN. EVER!

[ruggerson]

5. CHUCK HAGEL ON ABORTION

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

[ruggerson]

6. CHUCK HAGEL ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)

[ruggerson]

7. CHUCK HAGEL ON CORPORATIONS

Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 87% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)

[Earth_First]

8. I can't fucking believe that folks are choosing Chuck Hagel...

Mr. Blackbox Voting Jr. himself.

lol, Chuck Hagel.

[Earth_First]

13. Chuck Hagel AIS & ES&S:

While Diebold has received the most attention, it actually isn't the biggest maker of computerized election machines. That honor goes to Omaha-based ES&S, and its Republican roots may be even stronger than Diebold's.

The firm, which is privately held, began as a company called Data Mark, which was founded in the early 1980s by Bob and Todd Urosevich. In 1984, brothers William and Robert Ahmanson bought a 68 percent stake in Data Mark, and changed the company's name to American Information Services (AIS). Then, in 1987, McCarthy & Co, an Omaha investment group, acquired a minority share in AIS.

In 1992, investment banker Chuck Hagel, president of McCarthy & Co, became chairman of AIS. Hagel, who had been touted as a possible Senate candidate in 1993, was again on the list of likely GOP contenders heading into the 1996 contest. In January of 1995, while still chairman of ES&S, Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald that he would likely make a decision by mid-March of 1995. On March 15, according to a letter provided by Hagel's Senate staff, he resigned from the AIS board, noting that he intended to announce his candidacy. A few days later, he did just that.

A little less than eight months after steppind down as director of AIS, Hagel surprised national pundits and defied early polls by defeating Benjamin Nelson, the state's popular former governor. It was Hagel's first try for public office. Nebraska elections officials told The Hill that machines made by AIS probably tallied 85 percent of the votes cast in the 1996 vote, although Nelson never drew attention to the connection. Hagel won again in 2002, by a far healthier margin. That vote is still angrily disputed by Hagel's Democratic opponent, Charlie Matulka, who did try to make Hagel's ties to ES&S an issue in the race and who asked that state elections officials conduct a hand recount of the vote. That request was rebuffed, because Hagel's margin of victory was so large.

As might be expected, Hagel has been generously supported by his investment partners at McCarthy & Co. -- since he first ran, Hagel has received about $15,000 in campaign contributions from McCarthy & Co. executives. And Hagel still owns more than $1 million in stock in McCarthy & Co., which still owns a quarter of ES&S.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html

[ruggerson]

9. CHUCK HAGEL ON EDUCATION

Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)

[ruggerson]

CHUCK HAGEL ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

[zulchzulu]

10. Hagel's record

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Abortion:
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Civil Rights:
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Free Trade:
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
Rated 92% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

Guns:
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

Health Care:
Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage. (Apr 2001)
Rated 12% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)

More on link....pretty freakin' conservative sans the Iraq War issue...

[ruggerson]

12. Given Chuck Hagel's votes, what FUCKED UP Democrat would vote for Chuck Hagel?

n/t

[clarquistador]

16. Yeah, but all I want to know.....

is he questioning violence in video games and does he think that all young Americans are lazy trust fund babies?

LOL.......

[ruggerson]

14. CHUCK HAGEL ON "FAMILIES AND CHILDREN"

Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

[More Than A Feeling]

15. Chuck Hagel is your standard issue conservative. He only looks moderate because

his party is so fucked up. That doesn't make him a moderate, and that doesn't make him a good choice for president. I'd like to see a Democrat appointing John Paul Stevens' replacement.

[Roland99]

17. I'd vote for a bucket of scum before EITHER of those two.

Hillary needs to stay in the Senate. She'd be a HORRIBLE President. She's too damn tied to the DLC and, for crying out loud, enough with the Clinton/Bush lines!!!

Get some fresh blood in the WH!!

[TwilightZone]

18. Anyone voting for Hagel in this poll has no clue who he is.

Take it from a Nebraskan: Chuck Hagel is very, VERY conservative.

http://issues2000.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Research before you kneejerk, people.

[skipos]

20. Hagel thinks that Ben Nelson is too liberal, why are DUers voting for him? nt

[Peace Patriot]

21. I have a curious couple of facts to throw into the discussion...

Chuck Hagel is dirty on electronic voting. He got elected to the Senate by his own electronic voting company, the predecessor of ES&S. Of the two--Diebold and ES&S--ES&S has the WORST far rightwing connections--although they are brethren corporations, now run, literally, by two brothers, Bob and Tod Urosevich. ES&S was initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals (among other things). (These are the people--Diebold and ES&S--who "counted" 80% of the nation's votes in 2004, under a veil of corporate secrecy.)

And Hillary Clinton was one of ONLY TWO U.S. Senators who voted AGAINST the so-called "Help America Vote Act" --the infamous bill, engineered by the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney, which brought Diebold and ES&S into our election system for "trade secret" vote tabulation. The other was Charles Schumer. Go figure. My guess? New Yorkers are rather attached to their old, reliable, and virtually unriggable lever voting machines, and are putting up a fight to hang on to them, and to resist intense Bushite pressure to install electronic voting owned and controlled by Bushites. And Clinton and Schumer were bowing to New Yorkers' feelings about the matter, in voting "no". They don't seem otherwise particularly democratic with a small d in their outlook on things. And Hillary may have figured, too, that the wingers at Diebold and ES&S will never give her a break, no matter how far right she veers. But the big shocker to me was that ALL THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATORS voted FOR this piece of crap legislation that has nearly destroyed our election system, and by which these Bushite corporations can, at any time they wish, determine the outcome of almost any election in the U.S. of A., without detection. That's an even bigger "go figure." GO FIGURE!

[Mz Pip]

23. Chuck Hagel

has the same views Bush does on just about everything except the war at this point. Don't be fooled by his ability to speak in coherent sentences. He's a Bush clone with better manners.

[rep the dems]

24. 11 votes for Hagel?

Make no mistake DUers, Hagel is not on our side. Just because he was smart enough to start acting like the Iraq War was a bad idea before the other Republicans doesn't change the fact that he voted for the war in the first place. I can deal with someone who did that and acknowledges it was a mistake, but not someone as conservative as Hagel. As I recall he doesn't support that dumbass fence either, but still.

[Peace Patriot]

25. Prediction (and worry)....

If the war profiteers and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and the Bushite donors at Diebold and ES&S, engineer a War Democrat as the nominee in '08, who is opposed by a War Republican, the Democratic Party will suffer another "1968" (meltdown over the war). Hillary, or whoever it is, will not win (not so much because of Diebold and ES&S, whose political choice by then I cannot fathom--as it will be because of party dysfunction, with the grass roots in open revolt). And the War Republican will win by default. What will follow will be something like 1930 in Germany. It will take wheelbarrows full of dollars to buy a loaf of bread. And what will happen after that....?

If it's Hagel vs. Clinton (or any similar matchup re the war), both will lie through their teeth about their intention to end the war with Iran (ahem...Iraq)....

...pause for thought...

Personally, I will never forget the first vote of my life, in 1964. I voted for the "peace candidate." LBJ. (Lesson: Beware of Democrats bearing "peace.")

Um, a lot of things can happen between now and then. But say things haven't changed too much. (No "Gulf of Tonkin" incident with Iran yet.) We're still in Iraq. (Yup--we're NEVER going to give up those military bases--until we get transparent vote counting in the U.S.) And the debate still centers around the ephemeral "withdrawal" date. We're thick in the quagmire, many more are dying, and our treasury and credit are nearly busted. Hagel will use his "all talk and no action" record of "criticism" of the Bushites' war. He's chattered away, and voted for everything Bush wanted, all along--including voting AGAINST an amendment of the IWR that would have resticted the emperor's power to inflict preemptive war. Now he has a statement on his site "Withdraw from Iraq. Honorably." It is so hauntingly similar to Nixon's "Peace with honor" as to make us old fogies cry some tears amdist our maniacal laughs.

Hillary will be the Democrat bearing "peace" that we must beware of. LBJ all over again. The peace candidate. All reformed now in her thinking about Iraq. Time to get out--with honor.

They'll both sound the same. And there won't be a nickel's worth of difference between what they'll do, once in office, regarding The War. They'll will both act to defend U.S. forces and Israel against some phonied up "attack" by Iran. And we'll become kind of like Tsarist Russian during WW I--pouring all the country's blood and all the country's treasure into a longer and longer and longer war, while a larger and larger portion of the American people begin losing their homes, falling onto the streets and starving to death. War profiteers are driving policy. They have accounts in the Cayman Islands, into which they are pouring boatloads of cash from our FUTURE coffers. That's the situation. As Kurt Vonnegut says: So it goes.

Hillary might do something about the millions who are out of work--bread lines and such. Hagel is a social Darwinist: let them die, the fittest will survive (cannon fodder, slave labor).

And, as I said, Hagel will win by default (or by Diebold/ES&S design, depending on how they want to play things out). Hardly anyone will buy his crap either. But the Democratic Party will be gravely fractured, much as it was after RFK was assassinated, and we were denied any antiwar choice in 1968. People will just not be able to stomach it. For all Hillary's lies and sweet talk, we all know how she voted, and what she's said thus far. Too many of us remember those days of lies, long ago--and the recent ones. Some of us will sit it out. Some of us will become Greens, and support an alternative candidate (--could be a fresh face by then). The Democrats need the grass roots to win--especially if Diebold and ES&S are still "counting" the votes (5% to 10% handicap against Dems, in general). They will lose if they do to us what they did to us in 1968--gave us no choice but to vote for their goddamned war. (--the slaughter toll was pushing a million, by that point).

It's possible that the rightwing billionaires at Diebold/ES&S will choose Hillary, for their own reasons (--to place the blame for all the carnage and cost of the Mideast war on the Democratic Party--and also the heavy fallout from Bushonomics--but to maintain the military budget as long as there is anything left to hock to the future; also, if Hillary gets any ideas at all about helping the poor, they can do a Kenneth Starr on her--they have all the lines already written).

This is a bleak picture, ain't it? But the OP posed this contest, so I ran with it. But consider another scenario...Gore vs. Hagel.

I think Gore would sweep the electronic voting machines right into the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Mississippi River. I think he would totally overwhelm the machines, as Americans give him the biggest landslide in history. He has no taint from the war. He has been totally right about it from the beginning. He has no pro-war votes to explain (as Hagel does). People think he was elected anyway in '00, and should have been president, not Bush (and they are quite right about that). It will be the Restoration of King Charles II all over again. There will be dancing in the streets! I think he will wipe the floor with Hagel (who has a number of problems, including the fact that he is dirty on electronic voting.)

I have big disagreements with Gore, mainly re globalization (his past policies, or association with Clinton polices). Doesn't matter. I can smell the laurel wreaths. I have been paying close attention to his speeches since before the 2004 election. He nailed Bush. He nailed him good, as running the most dishonorable regime in our history. His speeches on torture and Constitutional government will make you weep (if you haven't heard them). The man is on fire. And that's not even to get into the matter of global warming--the issue that will define the 21th century and the future of the human race. He's matured. He's turned into a great speaker. And I think he wants it--why else has he written and given all these brilliant, major speeches on national policy? --although it's tricky for him, as to telegraphing his intentions.

I think he's what we NEED, is what I'm trying to say. He is a presence that transcends the political divide. He offers steadiness and experience, and a lofty spot out of the fray all this time. And he is also a visionary.

But how to get all these other ambitious people--all with lesser personalities, and less formidable resumes--to step aside, and get him nominated, I do not know. I just have this very strong feeling that that's what we should do.

[MasonJar]

26. You'd vote for Hagel, who probably won by providing the voting

machines upon which he was elected, over the democratic nominee, Hillary? Please wake me. Am I still on DU?

[TheFarseer]

28. Hagel because

at least I will know right up front that I'm going to get screwed. Actually I would find the best thrid-party candidate and vote for them because no one thinks Hillary is going to carry Nebraska anyway.

[AtomicKitten]

30. For whatever it's worth.

FYI: This poll is being discussed elsewhere.

Interestingly, two people actually emailed me links to it.

I don't know what to make of the implications of that.

[TwilightZone]

32. I suspect it's been freeped.

At least I hope that's the case. I would hope that "real" DUers aren't ignorant enough to think Hagel is a better choice than Hillary.

[AtomicKitten]

33. ditto

[JNelson6563]

31. Wow, she can't win in a landslide even in a loaded poll!

Pretty sad. Not that the Clintonistas will be deterred.

[SaveElmer]

34. That she cannot win a landslide in a DU poll...

Probably bodes well for her candidacy....

DU...the land where Dennis Kucinich is considered a viable Democratic Presidential candidate and where Ned Lamont was going to beat Joe Lieberman in a landslide.

[JNelson6563]

35. True, many delusional types here but

this is one thing where my experience on-line and RL coincide. I know no Dems out here in the real world who think a Hillary candidacy is a good thing.

Julie