Poll: Clinton Would Lead Rice in '08 Race

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton leads Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a hypothetical presidential matchup, according to an independent poll released Friday.

The poll, conducted by Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion in conjunction with New York City television station WNBC, gave the former first lady 50 percent to 41 percent for Rice.

But Republicans John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani both topped Clinton.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-elect/2005/oct/22/102209774.html

I really don't think she wants it

We all know what that Party feels about African-Americans AND women. And, she is both. It'll never happen.

TC

The Republican base would stay home and mow the lawn if Condi were nominated.

was a row of Hillary Clinton related books on one shelf and below it on another shelf was a row of books on Rice. It looked suspicious to me ...

I don't think the American people are willing to vote in a Female President. That being said I can see a white female president before a black male or female president. If you only give them two options between a White Female and a Black Female of course they would pick the White Female. Some hard core republicans would vote for Hillary if that was the only choice.

Everybody's been knowing this since at least 2000. She was just biding her time. Everybody knew she wanted to be president before she even ran for the senate.

She'd be a unifier for them, and a splitter of the Dem Party. A very sizable portion of Dems are not going to vote for a DLC corporatist warmonger. This has become far more feasible than in past elections because there really are antiwar-themed third parties springing up that better organization than in previous elections.

But look at how many votes both Kerry and Gore got in this past election. And both of them are DLC wannabes, right?

People voted for Kerry and Gore because that's really the only option you get in a two-party duopoly. I voted for Kerry, but I wanted to vote for Cobb of the Greens. Is it restrictive? Yes. Is it unjust? I would say so, especially since it limits political discourse in this country needed for informed decision-making.

There is no real democracy. It's an oligarchy by whichever party receives the most votes. People on both sides of the political line, moderates, and those who just slip through the cracks have no real representation so they must just pick the lesser of 2 evils.

Gore joined the caucus because as a moderate Senator he agreed with the Centrist POV as did Bill Clinton. They ran a campaign in 92 & 96 based on these ideas. In 2000, Gore moved away to a more populist message.

Kerry was always the most liberal member of the DLC. He has an impressive 20+ year record where the label fits better than any other label. His positions on most things are consistent enough that you can read a Senate speech from 10 years ago and it will be a precursor to where he is today. (his values are consistent).

None of the other 2004 candidates (other than Sharpton, Braum, and possibly Kuchinch) were to Kerry's left. Dean had a 12 year record as a centrist, Clark was a Republican until maybe 4 years before. Gepheart was more moderate, Edwards pretty conservative for a Dmocrat.

Personally I'm a moderate but I really don't care for the party line even though it may be middle of the road. The reason being is because I don't think it's genuine. They just do it to gain votes and stay in power and I hate falsehood and corruption.

The only way I feel we can ever bring true reform in this country is by abolishing the 2 party oligarchy that exists and giving the people the power to decide their leaders through referendums. That would break party control and bring true power to the people.

Basically useless. Remember, Lieberman was topping the polls early on in 2004, and in 1992 it was definitely not Bill Clinton at the outset.

These early polls are little more than a distraction, and they can get us into trouble if we pay too close attention. Hillary and the other DLCers would be disastrous nominations for us, and not just because Hillary especially would unify the GOP and send their fundraising into the stratosphere. Hillary has been unacceptably pro-war, in favor of the war machine that continues to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East and elsewhere. There is no issue more fundamental to Democratic voters, and were she nominated, she'd split the party and send half of the Democratic base into the arms of a third party. (They're already forming, and opposition to the Iraq War is a central issue-- best that we have those voters rather than a third party.)

The viable choices for us are strong and relatively mainstream candidates who've nonetheless been strong against the Iraq War from the start, especially since that war is looking ever more disastrous every day. Wesley Clark gets a lot of attention here and I think he'd be a strong choice. Al Gore too, if he decides to run. And possibly Mark Warner-- he's a bit of a question mark right now but he may turn out to be our best bet in '08. Stands on the Iraq War, and on war-waging in general, are central to our potential candidates in 2008, and we need to choose someone who hasn't fallen for the invade-Iraq bandwagon.

that's what I want to know? This seems to be more about starting some kind of cultural argument against the democratic party, that would mock the idea of Condi as prez as a way to win over more black and woman voters.

That same poll shows her getting killed by McCain and Guilliani. Also, same poll shows that 49% of Americans don't want Hillary to run. Only 48% do. More people than not say they would not vote for a woman President.

Hardly a groundswell of support.

That's with 100% name id.

Basically Dems, if we nominate Hillary we are toast...AGAIN!