Fuh-fuh-first!
Democrats 2008: Hillary 34%, Obama 18%: Angus Reid Global Monitor — Hillary takes lead.
Many Democratic Party backers in the United States would like to have Hillary Rodham Clinton as their presidential candidate, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 34 per cent of respondents would support the New York senator in a 2008 primary.
Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 18 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 10 per cent, and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore also with 10 per cent. Support is lower for Delaware senator Joe Biden and retired general Wesley Clark.
Neither Hillary nor Obama are electable and either would insure another repub in the white house.
Once again the dems snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Obama’s percentages have been climbing steadily. Seriously, Dems. do you want Hillary as your candidate? Will she really bring change? Just imagine all the great images of Bill to be re-hashed during the election. Obama is the clear candidate, I don’t see the competition?
You know, I think Hillary is one of the easiest politicians to find good blog pics for. Who needs political cartoons? 🙂
At last we see the real Hillary.
So many Republicans don’t want Hillary as a candidate… hmmm
#1 you hit it right on the head. Unfortunately that means that wacko McCain will probably be president.
This is all Bushes fault. If he wasn’t such a screw up then Republicans could be focusing on issues instead of personalities. Instead, the Republicans don’t have any issues they can address without shooting their own party leader, so they shoot at Hillary thinking if they demonize her, they will have accomplished something.
BTW, if Hillary could bring some of the great times America experienced through the Bill Clinton years then I say bring her on.
2 Obama’s percentages have been climbing steadily. Seriously, Dems. do you want Hillary as your candidate?
And this is early 2007…
Who cares whether percentages are climbing or dropping – they are going to be fluctuating for a year, or so.
How much “sting” will the Bill-n-Monica jokes have a year from now, when people should be tired of all the “experts” declaring who is unelectable.
Hillary was slammed for trying to get a national health plan implemented in 1993… and Edwards is favoring the same thing now??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan
The Republicans will have a difficult time in 2008, if they can’t come up with new reasons to dispise Hillary, otherwise they will just look like Tom Cruise hopping on Oprah’s couch – shouting: “Whitewater! Travelgate! Friends of Bill Clinton! Vince Foster! , etc…”
It is the Bushs’ fault that Hillary is a loser? How come we are not talking about what a loser the other Democrat’s think she is? She’s been a known commodity for the past 15 years and Presidential commodity for the past eight at least and yet only 34% would support her? Obama has been an unknown Presidential commodity until recently and yet he quickly picked up 18%. IMO, it smells like Democrat’s settling for someone they think can win rather than someone that is actually worth shit.
1. No, they’re both electable. I dispute the wisdom of the democratic party attempting to reach out to moderates and independents by nominating moderate republicans, however.
2. Regardless of much else, Hillary’s education and intelligence are pretty evident — as always, I want to see the dem caucus nominate a grown up who understands how to make money and manage debt, however, and, as always, we can vote spoiler or be SOL.
7. This is probably one of the rare times I take any real exception to your remarks, dude — your ambiguous aspirations towards her candidacy are exactly what make me so leery of it, though. Hillary has been the nominee apparent since before the LAST election. Why? And more importantly, as much hype and ink as has been given to her, why can’t the average progressive cite her policies and platform by rote if there’s any justification to it?
Our last attempt to appeal to the party base without alienating moderates and independents shows up in the same poll — Mr. Electable Ivy-League War Hero is polling BELOW his old running mate, hair-guy trial lawyer.
From the sound of it, we’re bound and determined to nominate a brand-name product hand-crafted by DNC insiders and which of the front-runners actually gets the nod will be reduced to which formerly repressed social demographic we think deserves to be compensated by electing them to the executive office before the other.
The war’s over and we can’t reelect Bush.
But if we can’t do better than THAT…
CRIPES!
There’s always a lag. The “good times” were brought about by the Reagan/Bush years. Whatever problems we have now are the result of the Clinton years. The other benefit Clinton had was the dotcom bubble. It was nothing to do with Clinton himself.
Leaving the office vacant would be less damaging than having Hillary fill it. What Hillary was filling at the moment that photo was taken was the NASA diaper she was wearing. (Is that not a great mental picture? ) I hope Hillary does run – pretty much guarantees a non-Hillary presidency on ’08 which is good for the future of mankind as a worthwhile species.
This makes me as a Republican very happy. Keep it up Democrats.
#1 >> Neither Hillary nor Obama are electable and either would insure another repub in the white house.
I just love the pseudo-certainty of some guys. Try some facts:
Total Clinton Total McCain Undec./Other
50% 43% 7%
Total Clinton Total Giuliani Undec./Other
48% 47% 5%
Total Clinton Total Romney Undec./Other
58% 32 % 10%
http://tinyurl.com/288lq7
We need a none of the above campaign ala brewster’s millions?
Throw them ALL out office and start over. The democrat vs republican, red vs blue con game is getting old, corrupt republicans trying to take citizens rights and money away of corrupt democrats trying to take citizens rights and an money away.
I am starting to think it is all a carefully constructed ploy to keep people from concentrating on real issues concerning America, (the federal deficit, trade balances, stability of dollar, loss of manufacturing prowess, etc. etc.).
10…how long was the lag after 9/11, and before the market dropped 2000 points and the economy went in the dumper?
I want a Clinton/Obama ticket.
-A
hah! Adam – that would be pretty awesome actually…
I’m a Democrat, though I usually split my ticket to pick the best candidates.
Hillary should stay in the Senate. The last thing I want to see is a Demo Presidential candidate that ticks off part of the electorate (moderate Republicans and other ticket splitters) needed to get a Democratic candidate elected. That means nominating a political moderate, not a flaming liberal, and someone with a brain and workable ideas. Richardson and Obama are in that short list, but Obama’s pretty young and relatively inexperienced (2 years in the Senate). There have to be others that will make it to the short list–enlighten me.
As usual, my comments in the previous thread are being proven correct. The left’s base will get behind Hillary because she is the most electable of the lot, and gives the Democrats the best chance of retaining control in ’08.
Despite not liking her, her inner circle, or her husband in any way, shape or form.
One thing we haven’t talked about around here is Hillary’s potential coat tails. Granted, coat tails seem to be a thing of the past, but I strongly believe she’ll draw huge turnout, and drive people to vote for those who will support her initiatives.
11. “There’s always a lag. The “good times” were brought about by the Reagan/Bush years. Whatever problems we have now are the result of the Clinton years. The other benefit Clinton had was the dotcom bubble. It was nothing to do with Clinton himself. ”
Of course that is total bullshit, but you can believe it if you like. However if it were true the post Bush years will truly be Armegeddon.
Yikes
If you Think George W was bad Wait until the next round of idiots surfaces with false promises and bad ideas.
Did Hillary accomplish anything as a senator?
I cast my vote for the lessor of two evils.
#14
“I am starting to think it is all a carefully constructed ploy to keep people from concentrating on real issues concerning America, (the federal deficit, trade balances, stability of dollar, loss of manufacturing prowess, etc. etc.).”
I tend to agree. I would really really like to see someone leading our country who is not part of a huge organization that is funded by special interests. Anyone elected from one of the major parties will have to pay back the people who put up the money to get them elected.
#20 – If one looks at “The Barro Misery Index” (http://tinyurl.com/2end5f it is a .pdf is the situation) since the end of WWII Reagan did the best while Clinton ranked 2nd, and the current administration is doing rather well also. Not all of the progress during Clinton’s term can be attributed towards his presidency, and this goes for all presidents as well. The major technological advances (IT Solutions) Contract with America helped, & trade liberalization all led to increased economic growth.
#14 & 22 – I have yet to hear Hilliary’s solution to these problems.
While the current fiscal imbalance seems large, historically it is nothing to get excited about (http://tinyurl.com/yr8lzt). Stability of the dollar is best dealt with in the free market, and a smart investor would take advantage of the decline to cash in later. The trade imbalance is out of equilibrium, but given enough time it will sort itself out; there are recent trend studies to support that the imbalance is starting to narrow.
#23, The scary part is that really are people that think that way. I know you were being sarcastic, but that is exactly Bush and the neo-con’s philosophy. Exactly how this country got as bad as it is today.
Now all the Dems have to do is make the electronic voting machines agree with this bogus poll!