"Hillary Clinton would fare better vs. GOP than Kerry, poll finds"

Hillary Clinton would fare better vs. GOP than Kerry, poll finds
Stewart M. Powell, Hearst Newspapers

"Washington -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., would do better than Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., against potential 2008 Republican presidential rivals John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani -- but would still lose, a Gallup Poll showed Wednesday.

Both McCain, a senator from Arizona who challenged then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000, and Giuliani, mayor of New York City during the Sept. 11 attacks, would beat Clinton in the trial matchup 50 percent to 45 percent, the poll showed.

Either of the two Republicans would beat Kerry 54 percent to 41 percent. In the presidential election on Nov. 2, Bush beat Kerry 51 percent to 48 percent.

Clinton, a first-term senator from New York seeking re-election in 2006, appears to be the "stronger of the two Democratic candidates" 28 months before the parties begin the presidential primary process that chooses the parties' respective nominees, Jones said."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/04/MNGAJE2HUN1.DTL

Hillary's gathering steam, folks!

Hey, had to add a little necessary balance. What can I say

I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she's nominated.

how many pet issues do you have besides eminent domain?

The Green Party platform is on the whole excellent and positive.

but I'm seeing that even though I don't agree with the Dems on many issues, I'm even less in synch with the Greens.

Maybe there's some other party out there, but I'll be damned if I know what it is.

I think that party your looking for is called the Republican party.

:popcorn:

and Hillary Clinton is the neocon's dream opposition candidate.

Ask yourself WHY.

intersting. But my question is how is it that after 8 years of Bush the country could possibly elect another Republican? of course both Rudy and McCain are not preceived as hard line Republican nut cases--so that may be helping them.

the same organization that predicted Dewey to defeat Truman? Their polls are somewhat suspect,no?

of McCain! LOL

would beat Truman in '48--that's why it was such a big surprise. Also polling wasn't the science then that it is now. But I'm actually delighted with the results of this poll becuz I thought Hillary would be further behind than that. I'm not supporting her for the nomination, but I do think she has a good chance to get it.

And it comes only "28 months before the parties begin the presidential primary process": The 2008 hurricane season will be stronger, weaker, or roughly equal to the average hurricane seasons from 2006 thru 2007.

People don't know enough about Hillary yet. It's like comparing Apples and oranges.

Not being able to make a dent against the worst president of all time, George W Bush, proved that. Doesn't matter if our candidate was Ghengis Khan, whomever it was should've run away with it. That 2004 election was not George Bush's to win, it was Kerry's to lose.

The media wants us to accept Hillary as the inevitable nominee. The only thing that is inevitable about Hillary is that she will unify the Left and the Right against her!

If McCain wins repug nomination he will be difficult to stop.

McCain would be tough becuz the media has convinced so many people he is a moderate despite his record.

so they would probably still end up voting for McCain.

AZ

I'm confident we're gonna come up with another "Bill Clinton" or "Jimmy Carter" type who comes outta no where, grows on the average American citizen (or dummy), and pounds the hell out of whomever the repuke happens to be. Someone like Warner from VA comes to my mind as being that type of person.

down our throats because she's NOT electable!

because he beat "their boy" . Oh yea, he's not. Yea, sure, Diebold, whatever.

Fun at parties! Amaze your friends!lol

Good one!

:toast:

They are chomping at the bit! The media is even saying that Hillary's nomination is inevitable. Why is that? They hope that we are stupid enough to nominate such a shallow and amoral candidate like Hillary.

as a Senator.

That said, I am not so short sighted as to underestimate her abilities. Shallow? Hardly. Amoral? Well maybe.

But I will not be fooled by the media or the Republicans into wasting my vote by voting against her if she is the presidential nominee in 2008!

she sponsored that did it for her?

Or the call for more war?

Or was it both?

Im so confused.

-- I believe Senator Clinton will be defeated. I believe she will finish third, fourth or fifth. I'm not buying the mainstream news' coronation of Hillary Clinton. She's more celebrity than statesperson. Warner. Feingold. Edwards. Clark. Bayh. Possibly Gore. And maybe others. She has to fight them all. I don't think she can effectively out-maneuver all these folks AND position herself to the right of these same folks during the primaries.

Senator Clinton gets whomped in Iowa something like Gephardt did last time. Dick Gephardt -- a nice enough guy to be sure -- was a neighbor, a pro-farm, pro-labor neighbor and had won the Iowa caucus once before. Iowa Democrats buried him alive. He got 10-11 % of the vote. He was completely outshone by Kerry, Edwards, and Dean. Had Clark competed for Iowa, I expect he would have beaten Gephardt also.

Senator Clinton faces a similar fate in the snowy fields of Iowa.

Enquiring minds want to see the polling numbers for that potential barn burner!