Hillary Poll. What do the Democrats you talk to think about her and 2008

What is dominant sentimate amongst the people you talk to about Hillary and 2008:

people seem resigned to her winning the primary...why I always ask. They think she will have the support of the entrenched democrats...union, the party honchos etc. That's pretty depressing to me....the other thing folks have said, is that they won't send any money if she is the candidate. But who knows. Seriously, I could not vote for her...not even in the general.

eom

....end up being a repeat of 2000. Feingold didn't vote for the war but I don't think he's ready to take on the neocon/fundie mess either - we need someone with experience for this time around. Personally, I wish either The Bid Dog or Gore would/could take this on. There's still hope for :patriot: Gore :bounce:

About Clinton and his working relationships with CEO's and big donors?

....the WH Idiot hopefully everyone will be ready for "anything that isn't neocon/fundie". Yes, she voted for this "war in Iraq" but none of us are perfect and sometimes we do have to settle for the "lesser of two evils" whether we like it or not. :banghead: Or, the alternative is another 2000 types split ticket that hands the election to the neocon/fundie types.:grr:

People can haggle and whine and parse that fact all day, but the fact remains: Hillary has more support among Democrats than any other presumptive candidate.

She's not my top choice, but then again, I don't have difficulty accepting it when my dog is losing a race.

:shrug:

People can haggle and whine and parse that fact all day, but the fact remains: Hillary has more support among Democrats than any other presumptive candidate.

Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner.

I was answering Minnesota Libra who said, "I don't get everyone's opposition to Hillary Clinton."

Well, everyone isn't opposing her. Obviously.

......neocon/fundie killer ticket?? I'd take Clinton/?? too in a hot second. One thing for sure I don't plan to use my vote to make an idealogical point other than get the effing neocon/fundies out of the Congress and WH.

...but the way things are going for the GOP, the proverbial yellow dog could beat them in '08

than anyone else we could possibly nominate.

If we do nominate her(or rather, if the hacks and the big donors FORCE us to nominate her)all the Nineties GOP attack points come back and they are all guaranteed to work again.

Vince Foster will be dug up again(and I mean that possibly literally as well as figuratively)The stained dress will be waived in our faces again. Whitewater, the Buddhist temple, all the rest...they'll bring it all back.

And since Hillary, unlike Bill, HAS no charisma, it will work even better for them.

It's just not worth putting the party through all that again.

....catch the part about Hillary being better than any neocon/fundie. Even though she wouldn't be my first choice she could certainly give it back to the neocons/fundies as good if not even better than she gets it. I'd rather have Al Gore though.:patriot: I know, I know,:patriot: Al Gore has said he can't see any situation where he'd run, well I and millions of other aim to change that view.:patriot:

Hillary may poll well among Democrats, but the unaffiliated, the Majority Middle, as most people would call them, don't really like her at all. To win an election we would have to run someone who actually can win at least some of these flyover states.

In a recent interview, Hillary's pollster admitted that her advisers were divided over whether or not Hillary should vote "yes" on the IWR. It was decided that it was a better political position for her to vote "yes." I guess that some people would just brush it aside as a bad bet on her part. But others, of whom I am one, regard the politicizing of war as despicable. Personal perfection has little to do with this. Putting the good of the country before personal gain is an important quality in someone aspiring to run the country. If she lies and blames this on gwb's deception, then that is even more disgusting. Plenty of people knew what bush was up to, and Hillary was certainly one of them. Wellstone, then in a tough election battle, voted for the country regardless of his political fortunes. Hillary voted for herself.

Those of us who wrote and called about the IWR were right to believe that this war was going to cause an explosive situation in the ME. We knew that Saddam posed no immanent threat. Now those supporters of the Hillarys negate us with labels of the liberal-left. Our opinion is trashed because we were right and they were wrong. (I'm sure they will turn up in this thread.) The war-hawk Democrats either agreed with the long-war scenario, disagreed but were afraid to stand up for the truth, or are simply too dumb to be granted the keys to the WHouse.

You may find this this supporting of bad foreign policy a minor imperfection in someone seeking the top foreign policy job in the world, but I think of it as the fatal flaw.

.....in fact it pisses me off now as much as it ever did and yes I agree it is a "fatal flaw". BUT...........

What would be an even more horribly devastating - if that's even possible - is to give the neocons/fundies a one-way ticket right back into control of Congress in 06 and control of the WH in 08. Remember all the "principled votes" in 2000? Exactly what, other than 6 long effing miserable years of pure hell did they get for their efforts? Oh yea, people "stood up for their principles" and I'm stuck with the WH Idiot as a partial result. None of that "fatal flaw" vote needed to even happen if everyone left of the middle had just all stuck together and "used all of our heads as well as used everyone of our votes to accomplish the most good".

So yes I'm :grr:, I'm royally :grr: and this time I hope enough people have learned their principled lesson and as a result will vote for anyone that will help throw out the neocons/fundies from Congress or the WH.

So if "using my vote" for the most good is in fact wrong then I'm :applause: going to be wrong all the way to a Democratic controlled Congress and WH.:bounce:

Sorry for the "rant:

of what the Democratic population in this country thinks, thank god.

:smoke:

Address Hillary and 2008 after November 2006

....the November elections and here I am doing the very same thing myself. But speaking strictly on a personal basis here I have to admit it's hard not to look forward to 08 and an end to this neocon/fundie nightmare we've existed through for 6 long hellish years now. With :patriot: Al Gore :patriot: talking about his film recently has made me think of what could have been and what still can be if we just get to work. He hasn't come out and said he definitely won't run and just because he isn't thinking about it right now doesn't mean we can dream and can't work hard to change his mind. In the end though, you're right we need to concentrate on 06 for now.

She's raised 20 million for a Senate race where the Republicans can't even find anyone to oppose her. She's running and she's running now and I'm not going to wait to talk about 2008, I'm going to talk about it NOW. Thank you very much.

All this: "let's worry about 2006" talk is so childish, as if we can't mulitask.

When the MSM is calling the Dem primaries in a sweep for Senator Clinton six months before the Iowa Caucuses, they'll tell us to "Shut up and get behind the winning horse"....

she is hated so badly by the media that they will destroy her before she gets her campaign fully underway. They are afraid that she will be nominated. I don't know, but have a hunch that McCain is going to be the real darling for the media in '08. They absolutely love him. They would cooperate to trash Hillary and build him up, so essentially I agree with my friends.

...she might eke out a narrow Electoral College victory over McCain/Allen/Hagel, but her presidency would also be accompanied by a resurgent Republican majority in both Houses of Congress (courtesy of "split-ticket voters" who think they're ensuring "balanced government" by voting Hillary for prez and a Republican for Congress)...giving the GOP an easy target to blame everything that goes wrong on the LIBRULISM of President Hillary.

Oh, and she would become a red herring coast-to-coast, whose presence at the top of the ticket would severely hurt other "red/purple state" Democrats up-and-down the ticket in regions where Democrats already struggle to win office.

But hey, who cares about controlling Congress if it means the Clintons get to move back into the White House? They'll solve all our problems...THEY'RE THE CLINTONS!!!!!

I mean flat out despise her. The others merely dislike her. I'm not a fan at all, there's just something about her that makes my skin crawl. To me she stands for absolutely nothing and just blows in the political winds. I think it would be a disaster of mammoth proportions if she somehow gets the nomination. She needs to be defeated in the primary by any means necessary.

I hate hillary! I can't stand her. First off, she has made no major acomplishments and rode into office with political capital from her husband. Next, this is the woman who won't give a crap on street violence, wants inmates to vote, but thinks an adult video game should be banned.Also, hse won't get any support from new york, because if she decides to leave halfway through her term in 2008, they are going to be going through a mess of getting a new senator in an election year for presidency.
SHALLOW REASONS:
I think she's ugly
I don't like her hairdo
i feel she needs dental work and a better wardrobe.

is that, in an effort to win the support of people who will never, EVER vote for her, she has gone out of her way to alienate the people who really would have liked to back her. There's no one on the political scene today who's disappointed me more.

Out of all the Democrats I know personally, so far I've only spoken to one who's in favor of her as a presidential candidate. He's a local party leader.

If I had to just pick one reason why I dont like her: Too establishment.

The guy who likes her is very progressive. Not a corporatist, free trader or centrist. But he's involved with the party establishment and their conventional wisdom informs his, I guess. He also believes that the primaries will come down to Hillary vs. assorted non-Hillary candidates and the latter will cancel each other out, leaving her with the plurality.

And I think Al Gore is prepared for a late entry to perform that role.

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

The consensus is they like her, and think she would be a tough opponent.

One of them thinks she would wipe the floor in a debate with most dems.


Personally, I prefer Gore, but think she would be a fine president


(What is up with people here and personal attacks?

It is so childish. Grow up babies.)

Maybe that will settle it for good.

Most of them think she'd make a pretty good candidate...

That's interesting. Most people here disagree with you. But your opinion counts more I gue$$.

We need somebody who will think big to take on the challenges after Bush and she isn't it. She'd lose, and even if she didn't, she'd be a disappointment anyway. Most people know we need something very different than Clintonism.