Early 2008 poll...who would you vote for: Gore or Clinton?

I just wanted to take an informal poll of the people here at DU. I wanted to see how Hillary or Gore did one on one. So the question is, if the election were held today, which candidate would you support to lead the Democratic Party into the 2008 elections?

Former vice President Al Gore. Or New York Senator and former first lady Hillary Clinton?

Add a message saying who you choose instead.

Thanks. Just put the name in the subject line with no text.

I don't think Hillary or Gore would stand a chance.

Doesn't anyone remember that no Dem has decisively beaten a Republican for the presidency
in a one on one contest since Nixon resigned? Before that, you have to go back to FDR.

It's time for bloggers & even folks on here to get real. Russ Feingold & Hillary Clinton
will never be able to govern. Do these other dems want to win, or just feel good?

would be able to pull in enough votes from the south and the west to be formidable. Although Al is from Tennesee, he is viewed as a northern Democrat and Hillary, well maybe V.P. I really think we need to find someone new to nominate as Pres.

then I don't care what their name is.

I want:

fiscal sanity (to the extent that it can be had after what Bush did to the budget)

abortion rights

steps in the direction of universal health care

a balance between job protection and company incentives to keep jobs in the USA

a strong efficient military to only be deployed when it makes sense for the country,
not just for when it makes sense for the business interests of the Vice-President

genuine emphasis on education with steps to unburden college grads from crushing student loans

restoration of the separation of powers, and of church and state

abolition of the death penalty, and stiffer penalties for defrauding the government (à la Halliburton)

a foreign policy that consults with allies instead of lecturing them, and standing up to hostile powers
even when it might mean offending a few business deals

a massive push toward reseach on more efficient solar and wind power, and an equal effort at cancer
treatment (selfish there--my parents both had it, as did my wife).

environmental protection as if it was meant seriously--you can't buy another planet fer Pete's sake

a total rejection of alliances with religious loonies of whatever stripe.

Anyone out there willing to stick his or her neck out and adopt that platform, as always, realizing with
Bill Clinton-style pragmatism that unholy compromises will have to be made along the way, gets my vote.

That and $4.39 will get you a grande something or other at Starbucks, but I can dream, can't I?

we here at DU are the "radical" wing of the left. :eyes: I more closely associate us with centrist Democrats (most of the time) but to the Reich-Wing, we're "moon-bats", "radical leftists" and such. I think most here at DU are level headed progressives and that President Gore should finally be allowed to hold the office he was elected to. I think he has the determination and skill to get us out of this horrible bush mess we're in and repair our station in the world.

someone who doesn't come with a lot of baggage. Unfortunately I don't want to run someone who has already lost once, and Clinton definitely is too middle of the road.

the SCLM will force Gore to carry all of the same baggage as in 2000 plus now the added baggage of "already having been proved as unable to win."**

**This of course is not true, he actually won but the election was stolen--but the perception will still be there

I can't believe what I read. We should not nominate Gore or Hillary because we are afraid of what the media will say.

Then FDR would have been history. And forget Kennedy.

And here we are blaming the Dems for being afraid.

Gore and Feingold are my tops. If I have a problem with Clinton it's her war stance. Getting better for sure. And if she shows to be the best I will back her. And I don't give a rats heiny if the mainstream bozo's call her a dyke, warmonger, murderer. We have a gay, psychotic, sadistic, drug addled, necropheliac President right now. Of course the media won't say so. They will say, he is not changing his mind no matter how many die for his lie. Now is that insanity or not.

When will people learn she is NOT running! And IMHO that a crying shame.

President - Gore- or the one that I think could win - Hillery - even though I think she would make a good President also - around and around I go - can't decide.

Absolutely. But if he's not there and Gore is, then Gore gets my vote.

Can't get comfortable with the idea of Hillary At ALL.

and it would be so much sun to see the pukes have massive heart failure simultaneously,

But Gore would be fantastic. He is so intelligent and I love the fiery speeches I’ve seen from him lately.

However, he would have to really want it, because it will take extraordinary dedication to turn this disaster around.

...but she makes a lousy candidate. She's too polarizing and has the right wing frothing at the mouth daily. Not even all the Democrats can get on board with her. Just look at the ire she's raised on her Iraq voting record alone.

However, I want Warner in '08.

that claims that in an election between a Congressman/Senator and a governor. That the governor will win the great majority of the time? And if this is true, why might this be so?

plus they don't have lengthy voting records that can be attacked.

As for Hillary's "polarisation," Bush was even more polarising and look what happened.

That said, my allegiance has always been to Gore.

Governors are better candidates.

The vast majority of the time, we pick the wrong senators to run for president and that is why they always lose.

Feingold, Clark, Edwards and others to be announced have more of my interest.

keep 'em coming.

Clark

Tho I would support a Gore/Clark or a Clark/Gore.

However, he's said that he will not run for president, so I'll support the Democratic candidate in any instance. That's just me...I'm a died-in-the-wool democrat; have been all my life. Also, can't think of any republican I'd throw my vote to. :thumbsup: :dem:

I am open to any candidate that is not DLC. If the DLC is involved AT ALL, I stay home.

That means HILLARY IS A NO-GO. No way does she get my vote. Ditto Warner, Vilsak, Bayh, or any other DLC-er (I don't care how the DLC treats them or speaks of them, if they are DLC, there is no vote possible from me. At the end of the day, the line must be drawn, and I choose to draw it here. The DLC must go.)

TC

I can support others, but Clark is my choice.

but if the election was between those too, I vote vote for Gore in a heartbeat.

I've always liked Al Gore. But I like Hillary Clinton too, just not as much. For me, the difference between the two of 'em isn't great, so it comes down to electability. And personally, I don't think either of 'em are likely to beat even the crappiest Repub, but I think Clinton stands a slightly better chance.

I have no reason to believe Gore would run a better campaign than he did in 2000. And it will be much harder for him in 2008, if he runs at all, because he's already been branded in the minds of most voters. A lot of people despise HRC, but most of 'em admit that she's tough. In the climate of fear that the Repubs have created, and will only exploit further between now and 2008, it's gonna take someone perceived as tough.

I also think Clinton, with the Big Dawg by her side, would do a better job getting out the vote, especially among minorities.

From my sig/avatar, it should be easy to tell that my first choice is Wes Clark. Because of character, issues AND electability. Now that I've read the other replies, I probably should have selected "neither" but I read the OP as wanting to see how voting would shake out just between Gore and Clinton. Not even sure why the "neither" option was given, unless it was meant for people who would just stay home and not vote at all. That ain't me.