Who is acceptable 2008 candidate? Gallup's answers.

Another distortion by THE LIBERAL MEDIA!!!

large percentage of people who find Condoleezza Rice an acceptable candidate for the presidency.

Very frightening.

Same here ... These people are SO freakin out of touch with reality ... Their WHOLE world is based on 9-11, and if FREAKIN HAPPENED ON HER WATCH ...

All of everything else with her aside ...

allowed to vote, have children, and operate motor vehicles on the nation's roadways.

Which is why DU and other progressive blogs are so important.

We hold a distinctly different view of dear Condi.

She's nobody. Is she another "stealth candidate" who could run with a Puppetmaster VP? Is that what they are thinking?

listed in decending order of name recognition. If I was asked that smae question today, I couldn't give a single name! It's too early, and I want to see how each one campaigns!

are just people who already have a candidate they like, are not familiar with the name in question, and therefore vote "no" instead of "no opinion." I'd like to see some campaigning before picking a winner.

That said, it is kinda interesting that Edwards tops the list. I wouldn't have thought that. I'd think he would be near the top, but certainly not at the peak.

I think Clinton has higher name recognition than Edwards. I think Kerry has higher name recognition that Edwards. I think Gore has higher name recognition than Edwards.

I think Dean has more name recognition than Biden and Clark.

If I were to rank these by name recognition, it would look like this:

Clinton
Gore or Kerry
Kerry or Gore
Edwards
Dean

...after that, the names are pretty much lower tier.

Edwards is slightly higher than Clinton because 30% ("DU crowd") oppose the pro-war candidate, Edwards has not been identified as such, at least not as strongly.

I predicted few months about that Edwards would be the next candidate, let's see if I'm shown wrong. Probably, because situations change.

Since we were referring to a Gallup poll, and a poster said the results were based on name recognition in descending order, I'm confused over the "Marginal DU effect" reference.

BUT I do believe Edwards is a strong contender at present for '08.

Democrats are soooo forgetful they can't remember who the last Democratic nominee was, or the one before that...or the last legitimate Vice President...

Hillary's high name recognition has just wiped it allll from their memory!!!

I've been saying this since 2004 - Edwards is the only Dem candidate who can both win the presidency, and give us good results.

who has won, and who has lost the last few elections. Senators have gotten beat by governors. Why we think our top candidates (all senators) will change this is beyond me.

and our bottom 3 were from the north (out of the last 6 presidential runs).

Personally, I'd love to have a good non-senatorial candidate who comes from a flippable red state. Not seeing a lot of that high up the list.

First that Edwards is tops....and Clinton is next
Second that Guiliani is tops, and Condi is next....unbelievable...is this whole country out to lunch somewhere???
windbreeze

I don't think you care whether several times he was the headliner who raised money for Republicans (name another Democratic presidential candidate who falls in that category) but most Democrats think that stinks. And so Clark, who didn't impress in 2004, has a higher negative than positive. Someone's out to lunch, that's for sure.

when you say "several times he was the headliner who raised money for Republicans".

I DARE YOU TO Name those times.

If you can, great!

If you can't, then you are doing the GOP's work for them. That is what would stink!

Clark may not have impressed YOU....and that's alright; But speak for yourself though. As I am a Democrat, I would simply say that you do not speak for me.

don't think you care whether several times he was the headliner who raised money for Republicans (name another Democratic presidential candidate who falls in that category) but most Democrats think that stinks.

Well, there was that function Howard Dean did for the CATO institute... and that little shindig Jimmy Carter did for the 700 Club... I'm sure "most Democrats" would find those unpleasant as well.

If I tell you the truth one more time do you promise to remember it? Clark spoke at political fund raisers in his home state of Arkansas twice shortly after he retired from the military. Clark spoke at ONE Republican fund raiser, and Clark spoke at ONE Democratic fund raiser, and he did both inside of one two week period. Those are the facts, not: "several times he was the headliner who raised money for Republicans." I'm calling you out on that misrepresentation. If you have any evidence that Clark spoke at multiple fund raising events for Republicans, or that he did so more often than he did for Democrats, let's have it. Give us the links or stop repeating that lie.

Want to play over/under on whether Clark has spoken at more than or less than 100 Democratic fundraisers since that two week period where he spoke at one for each Party? My bet is on over.

Did you notice, by the way that Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean had higher "negatives" than Clark? By your logic that must be because they are considered to be even more in bed with the Republicans than you claim Clark is. That must explain it, right? Personally I think it has a lot more to do with main stream media filters. The MSM has consistently been dismissive of Kucinich Dean and Clark, who just so happened to be the three Democrats running in 2004 who had the most grass roots activist supporters.

That we know of.

I know I'm not considered an expert of any sort, so yes this is just my instinct speaking here. Name recognition is probably pretty negotiable as criteria for support; the number of people who are profoundly insulted by the assumptions that went into the votes in support of HR114 could turn out to be significant enough to result in losing the presidency again in '08.

Next, I'm going to read you a list of people who may run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. For each, please tell me if you would find that person to be an acceptable nominee for president from the Democratic Party, or not. First, .

BASED ON 496 DEMOCRATS OR DEMOCRATIC LEANERS

Dean has specifically, over and over, said he was not going to run since he was party chairman. I would say I disapproved if they put his name in a poll and asked me.

To say he "may" run is misleading and distorts the poll. It would anger me to have that asked.

Edit to put the link to the poll. It is so disturbing to see Condi's name there near the top of approval.


http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=23764

No hope.

Only one of those, Gore, in the bunch at the top.

Of course, Gallup's never asked my opinion, lol.

She can't even handle the job she has now. Not that the current occupant does. Shopping for Ferragamos would be a higher priority for her.

of the Dem list does not bode well in Dems retaking the WH in 2008.

One would at least bother to see the fact that McCain, Giuliani and Rice are at top of the GOP list for a reason (a hint Dems obviously would rather ignore for whatever unexplicable reasons)

Which is why I always say....
Give the GOP a knife, and they will cut their opponent....

Give the Dems a knife, and they will cut their own throat,
and then wonder where the blood is coming from! :eyes:

He is charismatic, and he is working hard on economic ideas and helping the poor.

Both of our sons, Republicans, said they would vote for Edwards over others. They like Dean also, but the media did its job there on Republicans.

They were impressed by Edwards over the others because of his ability to communicate.

:eyes:

any Democrat, no matter what. Give them a moment into their sentiment, though, and both choose John Edwards.

You dismiss Edwards and you adore Clark.

But we're in a world where maybe neither will even be on the ticket. Or maybe both will.

Could you get behind a Warner-Murray ticket? How about Richardson-Dodd? How about Moseley-Braun and Bob Graham?

Clark is formidable but so far -- so far I say -- is not registering as voters' favorite. He hasn't broken 10% in any poll I've seen, and rarely breaks 5%.

Edwards has. The most recent Des Moines REGISTER put Edwards ahead of Senator Clinton, the media's darling.

Edwards is listed by oddsmakers as far more likely to be the nominee than almost any Democrat. Are you ready to accept somebody on the ticket who isn't your lone, exclusive favorite?

I don't prefer Edwards.....for many reasons that I won't get into, cause it doesn't matter enough to most here....

but if pushed up against a wall, I'll take a Gore/Feingold Ticket; a Kerry/Warner Ticket, or a Gore/Warner ticket....as any other combination (other than some listing Wes Clark somewhere) loses, IMO.

These days in ain't about who I "like" as much as who I "Like" and "could win" during a General Election....and the added caveat of if I feel that person has been consistantly on the mark in important events "as they occur" instead of making important life altering "Mistakes" and then saying "Sorry".

And in the end analysis, "Its the national Security, Stupid"....and has been since 2002!

:hi:

What if it's neither one? Like the tickets you indicated, or one no one has come up with yet?

I agree with you that national security is an issue, but the Republicans have blown their cover on this. If they can't pull corpses out of a flooded Canal Street in New Orleans after a storm, I think voters are less likely to trust them against world "terrorism," whatever "terrorism" means, exactly.

Edwards has apologize for his vote.

Clark never had to vote at all.

3 years after the fact doesn't reward one with the presidency in my book. Period. :eyes:

In reference to Clark never having to vote......he still was able to affect the vote of others, which based on his position at the time was the best that he could do.

Wellstone, Kennedy and Levin all quoted Wes Clark in their senate floor speech they gave prior to voting "NO".

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King a couple of months ago....


and Sen. Levin....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

Paul Wellstone in his 2002 speech before voting NO on the IWR....
"But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/archive/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5423&catID=3605

In reference to your comment that the GOP has already "blown" their credibility on National Security.....don't be so sure and speak too fast......cause they blew it a long time ago, and yet, it doesn't seem to have helped Democrats regain any power to date. Plus, guess they could always say "sorry"...right?

synch with many other Democrats.

Of course Clark is influential -- he's a general and he's on CNN all the time. He's smart, he's articulate, and he's persuasive.

Say he drops out. No particular reason, but just say he drops out. What do you, as a Democrat, do then?

You goin' for Mike Gravel?

Why would lowans right now choose Edwards as their frontrunner for the Dem nomination, if your objection to him is so strong, I guess is one way to say it. Are they all dumb-butts?

I think you're being too dismissive of our team players.

Other Dems find the positive in Clark. Why can't you find the positive in other Dems?

Just cause I don't sit on the fence in reference to this issue.....and don't "love" them all in equal amounts like some others might.

You seem to like Edwards a lot...and I know that you have nice things to say about just about all of them. But I am not you.

In reference to Iowans, I ain't all that impressed...hell, Iowa turned Red in 2004...remember? Many folks "don't remember" about Edwards actual words and actions in 2002.....and the media just simply won't remind them until they see fit. Since I ain't the media, I ain't forgetting and I will say what I think "frankly" 2 years out.

It ain't like it was a "large" Des Moines register sample in that one poll, and so I don't believe that "Edwards for Dem Nominee" is now the law. :sarcasm:

I will cross the 2008 election bridge when I get closer to it....until then, please allow me to do and speak as I choose......

Thank you.

Respectfully,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _
DesMoines Register – poll

Edwards – 30
HClinton – 26
Kerry – 12
Vilsack – 10
Daschle – 3
Feingold – 3
Warner – 3
Bayh – 2
Clark – 2
Undecided - 9
=========================

Edwards, Clinton top Democratic choices for president in 2008

JONATHAN ROOS AND THOMAS BEAUMONT
REGISTER STAFF WRITERS

Copyright 2006, Des Moines Register and Tribune Company

June 11, 2006


Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina leads a list of potential Democratic presidential candidates while Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack holds fourth place, trailing Edwards by 20 points in an early test of support among likely Iowa caucus participants.

A new Iowa Poll conducted for The Des Moines Register shows that Edwards, the runner-up in the Iowa Democratic caucuses two years ago and a frequent visitor to the state since then, is the choice of 30 percent of Iowans who say they are likely to take part in the January 2008 caucuses.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York follows on Edwards' heels with 26 percent in the Iowa Poll.

Experts say it's the first poll showing anyone besides Clinton as the preferred Democrat in the race for the White House.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who used his victory in the 2004 caucuses as a springboard to the Democratic presidential nomination that year, is a distant third in the Iowa Poll with 12 percent.

Vilsack, despite getting good marks in previous polls for the job he's done in two terms as governor, receives relatively tepid support from his home state in the Register's new presidential poll, taken May 29 to June 1. Ten percent of likely caucus participants say that if the caucuses were held today, they would vote for him.

Five other potential Democratic presidential candidates listed in the poll bring up the rear with no more than 3 percent each.

The poll has a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.

Presidential material?

University of North Carolina political science professor James Stimson said the poll results likely would cause short-term problems for Vilsack, especially in raising money. News that Vilsack is not the favorite in his own state will make potential donors think twice, Stimson said.

Vilsack, one of several people whom Kerry considered as his 2004 running mate before deciding to put Edwards on the ticket, has taken several steps toward a possible run for the White House. In 2005, Vilsack started a fundraising organization aimed at allowing him to help Democrats around the country this year and sow goodwill with influential party activists in key states. In its first year, the organization raised $2 million.

Stimson said the results suggest Iowa Democrats are more comfortable with Vilsack as governor than as president.

Mickey Blackwell, a home remodeling contractor who backs Edwards, wonders whether Vilsack is ready to compete on the national political stage.

"Can he hold his own? That's a question I can't answer," said Blackwell, 49, of Hiawatha. "I'm a Vilsack fan, but I've got to go with somebody that is recognized nationally, and I don't know that he's recognized nationally."

Vilsack was scheduled this week to make his first visit to New Hampshire, the traditional host of the first presidential primary in the nation. The Iowa caucuses kick off the nomination process for the Democratic and Republican parties.

Edwards was returning to Iowa today to campaign for Democratic congressional candidate Bruce Braley and Chet Culver, the party's newly chosen nominee for governor. It's Edwards' fifth visit of the year, following four Iowa trips in 2005 - the most of any 2008 Democratic presidential prospect.

Blackwell, in backing Edwards at this early stage of the race, said he sees a candidate who "is a very personable, very nice guy that seems like he really cares what's going on in this country."

Blackwell also likes Clinton, "but I don't think this country is ready for a female" in the White House. Kerry, he said, "is strong politically in the East, but I don't think he's strong enough across the rest of the country, and a lot of people think he's stuffy."

The poll shows 42 percent of likely caucus participants hold a very favorable opinion of Edwards. At the other extreme, 3 percent have a very unfavorable impression of him.

Vilsack isn't quite as popular, with 26 percent regarding him very favorably as a potential presidential candidate.

Vilsack supporter Kristin Hirst, an Iowa City Democrat, said he could follow the path that was taken in 1992 by another Democratic governor of a small state: Bill Clinton of Arkansas.

"I think he's been a good governor here. ... I like his policies. I think he has more national recognition, so I think he's a realistic candidate," said Hirst, 52, a part-time clerk. "He just needs to be visible."

Clinton ''not a shoo-in''

Speculation about the 2008 race centers to a large degree on Hillary Clinton, who now casts a bigger political shadow than her husband and is considered a front-runner nationally for the Democratic nomination. While she hasn't put Iowa on her travel schedule since 2003, she recently altered her position on ethanol by calling for a major research effort to boost the fuel's use. She has opposed ethanol mandates. Iowa is the nation's leading producer of the corn-based fuel.

Leanne Kennard, a retired teacher from West Des Moines, is among the 34 percent of likely caucus participants who have a very favorable impression of Clinton.

"I think she's so smart. I think she's got her head in the right place, and I think it's her time" to run for president, said Kennard, 71. "There's a lot of women that feel Hillary deserves a chance, and she might do a better job than some of the stuffed shirts that are running around out there."

While Kennard is also impressed with Edwards, "I think he missed his moment" in 2004, she said. As for Vilsack, she thinks he's very talented but lacks charisma.

The poll shows Clinton with a 14-point lead over Edwards in eastern Iowa's 2nd Congressional District. But Edwards holds double-digit leads over Clinton in the 3rd District, which includes Polk and Jasper counties, and the 4th District, which includes Dallas, Story and Warren counties.

Stimson and Georgetown University professor Stephen Wayne say it's the first poll they've seen with a Democrat other than Clinton topping the presidential preference list.

"I think it's very interesting that Hillary comes in second, that she only gets 26 percent of the vote," said Wayne. "That should be very encouraging to other Democrats, that she's not a shoo-in."

The handful of potential Democratic candidates with support in the low single digits in the Iowa Poll are former U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, 3 percent; U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, 3 percent; former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, 3 percent; U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, 2 percent; and retired general Wesley Clark, 2 percent. Nine percent are unsure or prefer another person.

Every out-of-state Democrat listed in the poll except for Clinton has made several trips to Iowa since 2004.

Home-state views

Wayne said that the poll reflects name recognition of people seen as presidential caliber, more than popularity, and that the results show Iowans largely do not see Vilsack in that class.

"If here is a person that makes no secret of the fact that he is thinking about this, and only gets 10 percent, that is not very good," said Wayne, a leading scholar on presidential campaigns and the presidency.

A previous Iowa Poll, taken in January 2005, found that just 29 percent of Iowa adults thought it was a good idea for Vilsack to seek his party's nomination. They were outnumbered by the 55 percent who felt it was a bad idea.

It's not uncommon, however, for people to downplay the national leadership potential of their state's leaders.

A September 2002 poll in North Carolina showed 35 percent of the state's adults thought Edwards, who was then their junior U.S. senator, should run for president in 2004.

A June 1991 poll in Arkansas found that seven in 10 registered voters opposed the idea of Bill Clinton seeking the presidency. On the other hand, Clinton topped a list of 10 potential Democratic candidates, including U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, drawing the support of 32 percent of Arkansas Democrats.

Also in June 1991, three months before Harkin entered the presidential race, the Register's Iowa Poll showed 39 percent of Iowans thought he should run, compared with 44 percent who opposed the idea.

Harkin, as an announced candidate in December of that year, was the dominant choice of Iowans planning to take part in the Democratic caucuses the following February, drawing support from 68 percent, according to an Iowa Poll then. Other Democratic contenders essentially conceded the race in Iowa to Harkin, the favorite-son candidate, and made only token appearances in the state.

With potential candidates such as Edwards making repeat appearances in Iowa since the 2004 presidential election, rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 are unlikely to step aside in Iowa should Vilsack decide to enter the race. Just by exceeding expectations in the Iowa caucuses, they could give their campaigns a boost.

Stimson, the national polling expert from North Carolina, cautioned against reading too much into early measurements of a race that's likely to take many twists and turns.

"You are talking about people who have not thought about their presidential choice recently at all," said Stimson, the former chairman of the University of Iowa's political science department.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

The coverage tends toward Iowans and Iowa precedents in politics, but the numbers are there. Edwards has the name recognition, and increasingly, he has the support.

My thought is that all those Democrats out there can't all be deluded.

representing "All those Democrats" who "can't be deluted" -- Like all 119.7 of them (representing 30% of 399 - 399 presenting the total size of the poll with a 4.9% error margin)??? Guess that the other 279 Democrats in that one poll who did not choose Edwards are just plain old crazy and demented, hey? :)

See side bar at the link......



Geeze, it would take more of them to lead me off a cliff, and even then, I wouldn't close my eyes.

But thank you for the article from that one newspaper that endorsed Edwards in 2004..... about a poll taken by 399 Democrats, of which the mega amount of 120 chose Edwards.....just the same!

I provided the entire piece minus advertisements and two photos of Senators Clinton and Edwards.

Small samplings are accurate. Pew uses them as well, newspapers, tv stations, independent polling, and so forth. They are also dependent in part on population density. In New York State there are millions of folks, so a wider sample is usually culled from general populations.

In Wyoming, there aren't even 500,000 people statewide.

see:

Hell, small samples are accurate, and exit polls aren't.

Anyways, I'm kind of "DOne" with this topic....which I fail to see why Wyoming is even mentioned....but what-E-ver!

You can go ahead and forgive Edwards and his "mistake cause he was misled and took 3 years to figure it out (what a leader!), while many died and billions were spent that might have gone elsewhere--like to help poor people, but instead spend on his sponsored mistake" and love him to pieces. I'll take a pass. K?

acknowledgement that other Dems on DU and elsewhere find the positive in General Clark -- not hard to do I would say -- you would in turn find the positive in other Dems.

Also not hard to do.

But you choose not to do it.

K.

and so I don't think that I need to apologize to you for not saying what it is you think that I should have said. I don't believe that I have to live up to your "hope" of me....or do I? Respectful is a two way street, and it is my hope that you would respect that.

But frankly, If you were to re-read our exchange, I think I did just fine in answering the majority of your points....for the most part!

See you round!

:hi:

in the line of positive accomplishment and praise.

You're stingy with it except with Clark.

I was asking simply to see if you were a broader team player.

He is the one that can get me working harder than I have ever worked before in politics. It's just the way it is....and I don't mind being honest about it....at all.

Surprise!

for Wes Clark -- not hard to do, I repeat -- can you throw in a few affirming words for other Democrats?

I ask because it could be that Senators Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Bayh, Biden, etc. and General Clark and Gov. Richardson and so forth down our list of Dems -- are none of them nominated.

For all we know tonight Chris Dodd will be the 08 Democratic nominee and accept the convention's nomination in Denver in September of 08.

My personal first-tier group doesn't include Dodd, but I'm ready to volunteer to elect him over whichever shithead the GOP throws at us.

You know what I'm saying?

John Edwards already made it onto our national ticket in 2004 and Frenchie and every other Clark supporter that I know already closed ranks behind him once before, and worked our butts off to get him and Kerry elected then. We certainly knew that if Kerry/Edwards won in 2004 that John Edwards in all likelihood would have the Democratic nomination for President in 2012, and that Clark would never again run for President or Vice President. We ALL worked to elect Kerry/Edwards knowing all of that even if Kerry or Edwards one or the other or both weren't our favorite Democrats to put in the White House. There was no group of "candidate supporters" who worked harder for Kerry/Edwards in 2004 than Clark supporters. Dean supporters and almost all Kucinich supporters stepped up to the plate also.

Sorry Old Crusoe, but it is almost upsetting to me for you to not remember and reference what happened in 2004 and now question whether a Clark supporter who is not excited about the prospect of Edwards being the 2008 Presidential nominee would unite behind Edwards if he becomes our nominee. Personally I only rarely point out any concerns I have with John Edwards, and then ONLY in the context of whether or not he should be the man Democrats run for President in 2008. That is NOT the same as attacking John Edwards. I think Edwards is a great Democrat with much to offer our nation. But when 2008 IS the context for a specific discussion, by intent that discussion involves looking at relative advantages different Democrats offer as our Presidential candidate. Personally I don't think it would be wisest for Democrats to Run Edwards in 2008. Ask me to comment more purely about John Edward's overall role in the Democratic Party and likely you will get a much more positive reply from me. I will say that I would prefer running Edwards to some of the other names being talked about if that means anything to you.

I can find many fine things to honestly say about John Edwards and you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll find a whole lot more if he gets the nomination. That doesn't mean that now, years before the first Primary, I can't question whether John Edwards would be the best choice for Democrats to turn to in 2008. My support for Wes Clark is still rock solid, but I also say here and elsewhere that Al Gore and Russ Feingold are two other Democrats that I would be very happy to work for to get the nomination in 2008 if Clark does not run, or if he gets eliminated. But whoever wins the Democratic nomination, I expect to be out there working hard for them, which is exactly what Both Clark and his supporters did in 2004.

against the Repukes in 06 and 08.

My only real comment was that FC springs to Clark's defense if he's assailed on these boards but generally doses out the negative comments on other Dems.

And I felt that wasn't exactly kosher. As I said, if it's not ANY of our first-tier favorites, it's going to be SOMEONE, and finding something affirming about other Democrats is not a bad place to start.

It is the only topic on DU that by nature identifies the basic future of Democratic Party fortunes with advancing one man or women, as opposed to several other men and women who might also seek to be our Party's nominee. I would expect John Edwards to seek expert counsel on foreign affairs, to build on his own considerable knowledge, and be a much more responsible Commander in chief than George W. Bush is. I would expect Wes Clark to seek expert counsel on the underlying dynamics of poverty, to build on his own considerable knowledge, and be a much fairer and more compassionate chief executive than George W. Bush is.

But if someone asks me who would make a better president, Clinton, Edwards, Warner, Clark etc. well I have an opinion, and that opinion inevitably involves some side by side comparisons that end up in my opinion flattering my choice over another. Same thing goes for who is more likely to win over the American public to be elected in 2008. By nature it is competitive thinking. In my experience Frenchie is no stronger in her support for Clark than many Gore and Kerry supporters are in support of those men on DU daily.

candidates seeking counsel on areas in which they might need some bulking up. I think also of John Kennedy in that regard. When he was less than certain than his already-considerable abilities and knowledge might not be enough to meet the elevated standard of world leadership, he sought intelligent counsel. Often he got very good advice, sometimes less so in the case of the early sessions on SE Asia.

I would be absolutely delighted to have General Clark in the White House. But I feel the same about John Kerry, Al Gore, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Boxer, Mario Cuomo, and so forth. A long list of Democrats of inter-related strenghts. I'm not only a partisan observer. I genuinely think these people would be terrific. In and of themselves, I mean, not only in comparison to Dubya.

Enthusiasm for one candidate should not preclude appreciation of other candidates' strengths and appeal, should it?

That was in essence my only real point with FrenchieCat.

...call it a night, lol. See you tomorrow!

:bounce:

I don't see how either poll has much meaning right now.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=23764&pg=2

Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for President in the year 2008, or if you would support someone else.

BASED ON 447 DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS WHO ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE

BASED ON 489 DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS

2006 Jun 1-4
Democratic
registered voters

All Democrats

%
%

Hillary Rodham Clinton
36
37

Al Gore
16
16

John Edwards
12
12

John Kerry
11
11

Wesley Clark
4
4

Joe Biden
4
4

Russ Feingold
3
3

Mark Warner
2
2

Tom Daschle
*
1

Tom Vilsack
--
--




Other
3
3

None
2
3

All/any
*
*

No opinion
5
5

* Less than 0.5%

At the current price, 10/1 or higher, it's worth a shot. Not only does he lead this poll, but if you look at the Strategic Vision statewide polls he leads McCain by considerable margin in every one except Michigan, where McCain is ahead. Granted, it's 7 or 8 states, not every one, but they are spread throughout the regions including the South. I'm starting to believe the conventional wisdom that the christian conservatives will reject him is bunk. They would if an ideal candidate were available, but that's not the case if you look at their apparent field. Besides, getting 10/1 you don't need a perfect argument.

nt

Those are my two top choices. I prefer Warner simply because I think he has a clearer path to 270.

I just wish Edwards had this type of name recognition in '04 because he was our best shot at ousting an incumbent.

He's SO beatable.

Couldn't even take the heat VS Hillary in the Senate.

He'd get slaughtered.

Although it would change the regional aspect and force us to spend money in New York, plus the other close northeastern and New England states like Maine, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania might be more vulnerable.

Remember, Rudy was on the verge of political oblivion until 9/11.

I say we run a candidate and quit looking to the retarded centrist American focus group for permission.

F*ck the focus groups. Let's run a real Democrat, with real Democratic values and ideals, and go for it!

Very spunky post, AK!

TC

I WISH Hillary was much further down!!! She's really beginning to sound like fingernails on a chalkboard to me!

And I'm ok with that. Its looks like an old slave plantation anyway. Black will match her black chrome helmet, boots, riding crop and uniform.

I see a white door I must have it painted black
No colors anymore I want them to turn black

Hillary? No, Hah thats funny really just shows you how wrong Gallup can be.

I find it a bit creepy.

:shudder:

This kind of discourse has always left me blind. Sorry if it creeps you out but we have domestic enemies in the Whitehouse. If I were an enemy of the United states I would do exactly as they have done. I would bankrupt the treasury, involve our troops knee deep in a big muddy quagmire, export all steel producing capacity to China, forget about North Korean counterfeiting,etc etc etc and when I was done I would leave nothing but a pile of smoking ashes just as George Bush has done. The only thing that appalls me is the that people still refuse to realize that George Bush is the enemy of the United States of America.

even if you didn't mean that like it sounds, it could sure be misinterpreted.

Yes, he was wrong on the war vote, but he's better on class issues than any elected Democratic president since LBJ.

I hope the Republicans nominate Newt and not Giuliani or McCain. (Actually, McCain might not be bad for us. Every time a Vietnam vet is nominated, he loses, largely because the other vets won't vote for them.) Forget about Rice. She doesn't want the job, and would never be nominated.