Which of the following Democrats would you LEAST want to see run in '08?

I think it's just as important to know who's least wanted as much as who's most wanted.

I didn't inlcude Dean and Gore because both have claimed they would not run again. Dean said he wouldn't run if he won the DNC chair, and Gore said he does not ever again plan to seek political office.

The choices in alphabetical order by last name:

The right-wing media well have a field day with her just like how the swift boat for truth did with Kerry.

would be turned into an coward whose men hated him because of his lack of morals and leadership skills.

And they would spend a billion dollars in ads to do it, while the media interviews the men who were against the type of underwear he wore as General and while ignoring the miracle cancer cure he just performed on a half million cancer patients at the Fountain of Lourdes.

That's what they do. They control most media.

I really don't trust her anymore.

Dunno if he's running again or not. I'm hoping he's finally gotten the point by now.

would've added his to the list. He probably would've been right up there in votes!

Sarcasm?

This week, Glen Beck talked about how Lieberman wrote him a glowing recommendation for Yale. Beck said he believes that the stellar recommendation was one of the primary reasons he made it into Yale.

Glen Beck--the man who called Cindy Sheehan a "ditch slut" and constantly rationalizes the neocon agenda.

Thanks Joe--for leveraging such a creep.

Ivy League connections. Why doesn't he inform his audience that he's little more than a Northeastern, New England liberal? Fucking Fascist opportunist hypocrite.

MojoXN

but I know a few moderates repugs that may swing - only if Hillary is not the ticket.

I don't think Hillary is too popular with many DUers, but I think by 2008 she'll have changed a lot of people's minds around here. At least I hope so.

:nopity:

She is utterly unelectable. Nominate her and we're basically forfeiting 2008.

according to what I've heard outta their foolish mouths about her chances of winning. They fear her as if there's no tomorrow. If she was such a non-entity, they wouldn't bother runnning her into the earth all the time.

and they said that they both "hated" her...and they said it with passion....and these are San Francisco Repugs....not fundies or anything.

So how does passionate "hate" from the other side help us win an election?

I would prefer someone running that the right didn't automatically just "hate" by reflex. Wouldn't you? :shrug:

they whip up that fear and hatred deliberately as a tool to keep their base fired up. Hillary is the biggest cash cow and biggest mobilizer that they've got. Of course they're going to make sure that their base is terrified of her, that's what she's for.

I've never understood the fixation that they have on her, but I really do think that it's a manufactured thing to feed to the base. I've listened to them talk about her on Christian hate radio and they damn near have her down as the anti-Christ. It smacks to me as a deliberate propoganda campaign.

My prediction is that if Hillary is the nominee, we will lose 2008 without them even having to steal it.

and probably accurate, although I hope you're wrong about your prediction at the end.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Geeeez, what are you people gonna do when she is elected President of the United States in 2008? :crazy:

...Because the odds of any of them actually existing are about as good as the odds of Hillary winning.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and we will be demonstrating and marching against the new war criminal in the White House.

Does that answer your question about what would we do when Hillary becomes President?

NGU.

Is she going to ditch her past support for neoliberal policies in Latin America, PATRIOT, and Bush's phoney war on terra?

If nominated, Hillary will lead the Democrats to defeat and destruction.

Hillary, Kerry and Kucinich (unless the repugs nominate someone totally ridiculous). Between those three I'd rather go down swinging with Kucinich but probably none of those three would be best.

and a horrible president. The governor from the third most populous state, a perceived moderate and son of a former president is an outstanding candidate.

A ridiculous candidate would be something like Condi or that crazy 10 commandments judge in Alabama

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if she gets through the primaries, that is.

I agree with you that Kerry and Kucinich don't stand a chance. If that's the case, it's a shame that Kucinich wouldn't stand to do better, because he's probably the epitome of what our party should do and say but is too afraid to stand up and actually do or say it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not that I wouldn't necessarily vote for either, but I suspect many would not, seeing them as has-beens.

Hillary might do well in some quarters (I'd vote for her if it came to it), but would galvanize the haters.

The Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against Hillary.

I can only imagine how many "Swift Boats" are waiting in the wings with new scandals, previously unrevealed documents and other lovely surprises.

Every time I visit the Republican-controlled Rasmussen polling site--they have a poll featured about Hillary and how so many people support her. Republicans are the ones leveraging a Hillary run, not the Dems.

I despise her hobnobbing with the BFEE while they've totally hoarked up the country.

Furthermore, her silence is deafening. Where the hell does she stand on the Plame outing? If she was a true Dem--like Conyers, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer Reid and the host of other Dems (who at least have a VOICE when the Republicans destroy the Constitution)--she would speak out.

She's not even in the game.

She appears to be controlled by the Republicans. She wants the nomination, and she fears pissing off the Republicans--who (for some reason) seem to control everything. She's being played.

She does not represent me. There are Republicans I would vote for, before I would vote for her.

nt

Don't bitch when the rethuglicans lock up the government for the next 20 years thanks to your voting for rethuglicans rather than Hillary. I'll never, ever understand convoluted logic like that in a million years.

She can go eff herself. Turned RepukeLite. She and Holy Joe can campaign at the Repuke convention as a ticket together.

...the OP had an agenda in purposely leaving her out.

So much for fairness.

NGU.

they set the stage for Hillary's run. Am surprised that so many DU'ers did not seem to notice.they want her to run in the worst as it would rouse every Fundie and near Fundie in the nation to vote against her.

as they are. The worst thing about Hillary is her amoral politics and her constant triangulating. I could never trust her with higher public office.

If the issue was one between Hillary and someone like Pirro for the US Senate, Hillary is far better than Pirro.

If Hillary were running against Giuliani, that would be a different matter altogether.

As to the White House, Hillary has given me no reason to vote for her and plenty of reasons to vote for any of her opponents during the Democratic primary season.

They are equally FUCKING USELESS to the Democratic Party.

It'd be Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

But, since I can only vote once, I am having trouble choosing between them.

Height is very important, donchya know? A good choice to vote for would be the taller one with the darker hair :evilgrin:

...we'll sort it out in the primaries. }( :+ :evilgrin: :bounce: :nopity: :shrug: :tinfoilhat: :banghead: :nuke:

that make me miss the caucuses. Real Democracy! I dread walking into a voting booth and just choosing between names on a list. Maybe I can just move to Iowa for a couple of months, but drive here to work.

I hit the wrong friggin button.. I gotta stay away from these polls (either that, or fully read the question first)

by mistake? LOL!

...that Kaine (Lt. Governor of VA) is probably correct that Governor Mark Warner and General Clark will run together. They've been hanging out a LOT together. ;)

Warner is an incredibly popular Governor (NOT A SENATOR :headbang: ), he has tons of money (self-made), and a stellar... STELLAR political record... and he WANTS WES AS HIS VP.

I seriously think the two of them will be a great ticket since they both have a unique ability to draw voters from all sides..

How many other Democrats can you say are able to do that like Warner and Clark? :shrug: As far as I know.. no one (since Clinton) has had the same ability as Warner and Clark to draw votes across the isle.

We HAVE to find a winning ticket, and this one will be "one to watch"

I'd love nothing more than to see the General as president, but Warner has the POLITICAL background and Clark the military background to make a Warner/Clark ticket HOT, HOT, HOT.

Voters concerned about fiscal management will also love him! :o

Government Performance Project for 2005:

..."Jan. 31, 2005 - Virginia is tops in the nation in fiscal management. That's according to a review of all 50 states by the Government Performance Project, a joint effort of the Pew Charitable Trust and "Governing" magazine. Governor Warner says Virginia was the only state in the nation to get straight A's in the four categories reviewed by the panel of independent experts.

~~

with clean cut good looks.

Two elections, the first of which he lost? That gives Warner sufficient "political background"?

Don't get me wrong. I like Warner. He's a smart guy--a little conservative for my tastes, and I'm leery of his corporate background, but from what I know about him, not unacceptable. Give him a few years to round out his resume, maybe as a VP on a Clark/Warner ticket, and he might be ready for the top spot. He's certainly young enough to pay a few more dues.

Ummm... just so you know... Clark also has a very long record of having to function within a balanced budget. And when he worked at OMB, he helped fomulate the federal budget, and not just the military side. This takes nothing away from Warner's accomplishment, but Clark brings a helluva lot more to the table than a "military background."

General Clark's WesPAC annual meeting takes place in D.C. next week...November 15th.
All y'all need to come out and understand why we Clarkies are so enthusiastic about Wes Clark.
This man has it all.
And Mark Warner would be the perfect complement to Wes and would have 8 years to gain foreign experience.
They would be a truly amazing team.
Two brilliant, caring men.
I could gladly work full time for the next couple of years to elect them.

It's less controversial, and she can prove herself in the interim.

http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

As much as I'd love Big Dawg to be our "first.. :think: " ... what would he be anyway?

She'll never make it out of the primaries!

TGH = taint gonna happen ;)

I answered 'Hillary' because she's who I'd LEAST want as a candidate, which was the question asked by the OP.

you ---> :spank: <--- me

Just say NO to Joe! http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

So I want the candidate who is most likely to do that. Can't say who it is yet.

Holy Joe can run because he is such a fool!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

On edit, read what Hillary said about Iraq to her AIPAC audience:

First, no matter what one thinks about events that have unfolded in Iraq, there is no doubt that the American military has performed admirably, with professionalism, and that every young man and woman who wears the uniform of our country deserves our support, whether they be active duty, guard, or reserve troop.

You know, it is on trips like that—despite the often dangerous circumstances, I wish I could bring every one of my constituents—all 19 million of them and any others who could come—to see firsthand. I flew from Baghdad to Fallujah in a Blackhawk helicopter; met with the Marines who had liberated Fallujah from the insurgents and terrorists.

I met with many others of our Marines and soldiers who are committed to their mission to try to bring freedom to the people of Iraq. They, as well as the troops I saw in Kuwait and in Afghanistan, are committed to this fundamental belief that people deserve the right to be free, deserve the right to select their own government, deserve the right to plot and plan for a better future for themselves and their children.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/August_2005/0508012.html

Do you really want this woman in the White House?

That's most of 'em on the list, ain't it?

Conclusion #1: We're not quite as different from repukes as previously believed. Both they and us are not very fond of the same two Democratic hopefuls, each in our own ways. :shrug:

Conclusion #2: Half of the Hillary voters made an honest mistake and pulled the wrong lever. :wtf:

Conclusion #3: John Kerry is finally consistent in one thing....coming in second. :evilgrin:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.

He has a history of abetting American imperialism, including his current role in Haiti.

The sad thing is, I'd probably vote for him.

I'm familiar with a visit he made about 9 months ago as part of a team sent by the US Institute for Peace.

Please provide sources, preferably legitimate ones.

Whether he has "a history of abetting American Imperialism" depends solely on how you define imperialism.

But I can tell you this much: There's not a thing that Clark has done in his "history" that wasn't approved by just about every names on the list. So it strikes me as sort of stupid to single him out.

a Hillary candidacy, and any more Joementum and we can all just pack it in, but the idea of watching John Kerry wind-surf his way to another defeat is simply more than I could stand.

if there were such an award.

and I couldn't agree more!

NGU.

we should be focussed on the issues ...

candidate battles before we workout some kind of common ground on a platform are killing us ...

Seeing her run for the nomination and possibly winning it is like watching the Titanic slowly colliding with that iceberg.

set the stage, set the brain-washing machine in motion.

Hillary will need 4 terms to right Bush's wrongs...!

Hillary represents the elites of this country and she doesn't speak for me.

demonstrated loser, who definitely DOES NOT have my back. :thumbsdown:

I know Hillary has some support...but not enough. Any moderate dems out there? Any...at all?

Careful though, moderate is a very dirty word here.

Listening to activists from Iowa and New Hampshire the people who actually vote and chose the nominees, I guess the nomination is Mike Dukakis's to lose.


Welcom to DU :toast:

I would choose Kerry on the basis of his terrific wife.

She's won every election and has massive grass roots support. I'll never really forgive her for selling out on IWR, but Kerry is in the same boat there. At least Hillary has a shot at winning.

I want a change in personnel and in policy.

Do you even know that Hillary and Bush are clones of each other when it comes to Iraq?

Here is Hillary on Iraq (and her silence on torture and civilians killed by our bombing):

I'd like a true progressive instead. But, given the choice between the 2 I'd go for Hillary in the primary. That's all I was saying.

They might have similar tones about the occupation, just like Kerry and many others, but there is no Democrat who started the war with lies. None. So they are not clones when it comes to Iraq.

and he will be my choice in 2008 as he was in 2004.

Unless someone speaking the kinds of things Kucinich said can find a way to get backing, they can't win. Right now none of them are displaying the kind of leadership and courage I'd like to see.

I'm Canadian! =)

So long as Bush doesn't get in again, life should be good. =) What about that Arnold guy in California? Just need to reword one silly piece of paper and you're good to go, eh?

Just so you know. Welcome to Du.

I like all three.

not winners ...

the fewest negative votes does not mean the most positive votes ...

A strong negative feeling towards a candidate is not a good sign.

my point was only addressing the logic the previous poster had used, not commenting on the specific candidates ...

the fact that they got the fewest negative votes does NOT mean the candidates who did best in this poll would get the most positive votes ... many of those who cast negative votes might not have voted for the candidates the poster cited ...

but your point is certainly valid ...

First, a caveat. "Hate" is too strong a word. I don't "hate" any of these (well, with maybe one exception, but even for that one, I appreciate it when he does good for the party). But since you used the word "hate," I will too.

You can't say they're not hated based on this poll, you can only say they're not the MOST hated. We couldn't vote for more than one candidate, and personally, there are a bunch on the list I don't want to see run in '08.

The question you have to ask is, why aren't Bayh, Feingold, and Warner the MOST hated?

Could be because many people don't know as much about 'em. As they become more known, they might become more hated.

Could just be that people hate Clinton and the other leaders in this poll more and one of these three would get their second vote. I don't believe Bayh is particularly popular at DU, for example, and could easily move into the most hated position if Clinton and maybe Kerry weren't on the list.

Could be because many people don't see these three as having a realistic chance at winning the nomination (and I'll admit those people could be very wrong). If they're not perceived as a threat, they're not as likely to engender hatred.

Conversely, at least one on the list probably got a few votes just because he clearly has no chance, and some people don't like what they see as "vanity candidates" clogging up the process. Doesn't mean anyone hates him.

Bottom line. You can tell from this poll who evokes the most "negative feeling" from the poll participants. But since you can't tell who garners the least, it really says nothing about how they're perceived or what their chances are.

the Biden, Edwards, Kerry and Hillary votes. Enough with the Senator thing already. Although I really hope the Pugs run Elizabeth Dole! Wouldn't an Obama/Richardson ticket be cool?

I don't think she'll win. But I think she should give it a shot, given what she's done for us so far.

i think others should too. it seems like the DNC is already grooming her for it, which means they want to lose again.

It's not that I hate her politics so much (altough I hope she goes sane on Iraq soon), it's just that according to the polls I've seen, she ends up losing to everyone but Jeb Bush, who's not running anyway.

I don't want to see her run. I didn't think it would be useful to vote for her since everyone else has already.

So I decided to go with my second choice.

However, everyone else listed I would be fine with.

I just don't want to see Hillary run..

But, I don't think she will, anyway.

Nothing personal - I like most of his stands -- and he talks the talk -- but when it comes to walking the walk he is as uncoordinated as Gerry Ford and Jimmie Carter.

Great Congressman - lousy Mayor.

(My Mom's family is from Cleveland, my wife's grad school room mate lives in Cleveland, and I spent about one week a month in Clevelnd during his term)

The media keep spinning the notion that she is, but I just don't see it. No one I know wants her to run. She will polarize the right and the center and I don't think it will be a good thing for the Democrats...

Who wants to bet after seeing this we end up with a H Clinton/ JKerry ticket?
:shrug:

can all forget about my vote.

For whatever it's worth, I think Warner will likely head the ticket in 2008, but who knows? Maybe with Hilary as VP.

woman

Shocked that so many are so opposed to Hillary.

I voted for her as my choice, too.

I'd rather be running on Bill's great 8 years AS A PARTY, not AS A FAMILY.

She's a terrible speaker, she's still too stiff, and she's never going to unite the party.

Simple as that. She's an opportunistic DINO who is good at only one thing... being a politician.

If she's the Democratic nominee in '08, I'll be voting libertarian.

MojoXN

I will vote Green or Libertarian or I have to believe that there would be a big backlash for a write-in Dem. I would love to have Hillary in the Cabinet and I would even think she would make a great Supreme Court Justice (as would Bill, by the way).

There voting records are too easy to pick apart.

Damn it, too late to edit :banghead:

This just isn't fair what you're doing to Hillary! :shrug:

All of you who voted for Hillary are no longer invited to my summer barbecue this winter! :evilgrin:

Seriously, though, a few observations...

I'm actually surprised that 13 people used their vote to pick Wesley Clark. I figured he'd get maybe 2 or 3 votes if any, and that one of those would be by mistake. I just didn't think anyone would feel stronger about him (negatively) than Hillary or Kerry, but I guess 13 people do. It's actually refreshing to see that...in a weird kind of way. Few candidates get a free ride here, eh.

I also agree with WelshTerrier2 that "the fewest negative votes does not mean the most positive votes" in this poll. A few of the Democratic hopefuls listed here are not all that well-known across the board and therefore less controversial, among many other things.

The DNC might want to consider something like this, unless they don't consider DU to be a reflection of how the Democratic voters feel (and they probably don't). I'm sure we're considered left of center and I wonder if the results of this poll would be anything similar if generic Democrats across the board were polled on this. My guess is that there wouldn't be nearly as much distance between Hillary and Kerry in such a poll.

Lastly, I'm gonna remember this poll when Hillary gets sworn in as of January 2009! :smoke:

Any other observations or surprises?

1. I voted for Hillary in this poll because she can't get elected president unless the South secedes again.

2. Posters who say they will vote libertarian or green if Hillary is the nominee are not Democrats, and I therefore ignore anything they say as meaningful for the Democratic party. In a nutshell, they don't count in the process of picking a nominee. Why pay attention to people who won't support the nominee?

...then Bill made her look like a fruitloop for acknowledging that.

The media has tainted their name. Thanks Bill for eliminating media fairness too! Damn, I sure miss that Tomcat. Just not his Republican light betrayal of the working and middle classes.

But it would be a disaster for our Party in 2008 even if she won.

I'm having trouble figuring that one out.

have zero chance of getting my vote.

Everybody I know hates Hillary. I like her, but she's most useful right where she is, in the Senate.

If she ran, the fundies would drag themselves to the polls like never before....

Gore/Obama '08

"I never liked heem."

Biden, aside from being a corrupt MBNA-owned motherfucker who sold us out on the bankruptcy bill, is a weasel who blew his chance to bitch slap Clarence Thomas. He's an annoying man from an annoying state.

this poll result bodes very well for Hillary Clinton.

Least or Most doesn't cut it.

Set the poll up so that we can rank our preferences, using No. #1 as highest and No. #10 as lowest.