Hillary Drops, Gore and Kerry Gain Among Dems

...in Iowa and New Hampshire.

rather than having to fight her over there.

we can get some other voters in their before Iowa and NH presume to speak for the rest of us.

presume to speak for the rest of us?"

I am glad that as more people find out about her record, rather than the artificial public persona she project, she will lose more support.

thing in the study. (Said as one who would love it if this was from a huge sample where the moe were 1%. )

Favorites usually come in in the money but as often as they win, they are defeated at the finish by a dark horse or a second or third favorite. And the horse that takes the early lead as frontrunner and leads through the first half is rarely the one to cross the finish line first, especially in a distance race. Even in a sprint, this is a difficult feat.

In the long run, the media may have hurt her chances by making Senator Clinton the frontrunner. This is a handicapped race to be certain and she'll be carrying a lot of weight going into the starting gate if she runs.

Remember what the right uses polls for?

far away, but I'm looking forward to them because they will signal the end of Dubya's disgraceful two administrations.

I can take all the cold weather that winter can throw at me if I know that in a few short months we have an opportunity to elect a Democrat to the top job.

And christ knows we NEED to do that.

I don't know much about this polling group, but those results may not be such bad news for Senator Clinton, but instead, good news for all Democrats. The results tend to suggest that Democrats like more than one of their team members, and that can only be good in the long run.

I love Gore, but I don't think he'd stand as good a chance as he did in 2000. By 2008, he'll have been out of politics for 8 years.

Hillary could have as tough a time as many think she will in a presidential election, although not nearly as tough as what the naysayers on DU think of her chances.

Kerry stands zero chance in another general election. Fine senator but he's as stale a presidential candidate as you can get.

no matter who that candidate is. But, I'd rather vote for Al Gore again!

I think Gore would kick some serious ass in 2008, although I am loathe to turn this monster mess over to any Democrat.

He is not the only Democrat that can do this, but he is the most qualified.

Consider the diplomacy and skill that Kerry had at 27 when he was able to calm down and focus many of the very angry veterans to appeal to the country to end the war and to take care of the veterans.

Consider that, in McCain's account, Kerry was the only one who could have succeeded in getting the entire POW/MIA committee to function and to agree at the end. Kerry was able to get Vietnam to agree to allow the Americans to make searchs without prior approval and to engage in attempting to return US remains. (Remember there were thousands of unaccounted for Vietnamese too.) Kerry's temperment, compassion and committment were what made all this work.

He has been very remarkable lately in opposing the ultra-rightwing, and he does have great diplomatic skills, not to mention great foreign language skills (a rarity among US Presidents!).

said that he wanted the EU to get information on the Secret Prisons via Kerry rather than Bush. Kerry's office immediately explained that that would not be legal, but it did show that in Europe, Kerry was trusted as being trustworthy on this type of issue. I THINK GORE would also be trusted because there is no reason not to trust him.

When the issue of prisoner abuse came up, many people - even here - spoke of McCain's special credibility. He did have some credibility because he had experienced being tortured. But, I would argue thet Kerry risking his political future to speak out against US violations of the Geneva Convention showed that was adamently against these actions and he was willing to pay a price to speak out.

I am fully in support of Kerry myself. If it a choice between Al Gore and anyone else I'm there. They have both kicked ass after they were freed up from their political consultants and obligations to their campaign management.

Anybody smell a rat?

Hey, lookee! The repigs are trying to pick our nominee . . . AGAIN! Interesting, isn't it, that these numbers show up on the network owned by the man who feted Hillary to a fundraiser. Wonder why he'd wanna do that? Reckon could it be that the entire Repiglican Machine has completely invested itself in defeating Hillary, complete down to entire cadres of right-wing weirdos even now out in their backyards shotting watermelons to prove "Hillary killed Vince Foster?"

Lame.

it's anybody's guess as to who among the following 14 will run:

Bayh
Biden
Clark
Clinton (not running, IMO)
Daschle
Dodd
Edwards,
Feingold
Gore (not running, IMO)
Kerry
Kucinich
Richardson
Vilsack
Warner

I'm encouraged when I see any poll, even here on DU, with Senator Kerry scoring higher than 10%. Good sign!

William Jefferson Clinton (who? ) was an unknown (outside of his home state of Arkansas) this early on.

One of these Democrats could run for all we know:



(p.s: I just picked these Democratic Governors & Senators because of their super high approval ratings @ the latest SurveyUSA poll.. )

Point is.. We keep seeing the same names over and over and over again. The only one we know that's running for sure is Biden.

We could still wind up with a darkhorse that's NEVER been mentioned on DU as a prospect!

More like Warner is right now, only even more favored inside the party. He was given the 1988 keynote speech at Dukakis' convention and around this time had a long, very positive NYT magazine article. Biden may be running - but it's weird he can be good or he can be extremely bad when he is given a microphone. Clearly, the media would love to position him as the Democrat's foreign policy expert. Kerry, however, has been the one with more vision who has gotten right more often. Kerry speaking on national security is a natural for the Democrat - even George Will has said that Kerry was right in 2004 on this subject.

He's an incredible senator...
And incredible man...

But as a candidate.....

We can -------- and we MUST ---------- do better!

president!

Given the challenges facing this country, I'd say Senator Kerry is the best hope.

We can and must acknowledge that he did better than any Democrat in history, some would argue winning against the odds (lies, smears and media complicity). We can and must acknowledge that he has a solid progressive vision for the country. Kerry was/is right on the issues.

BTW, except for Kent Conrad and the crew, since I don't think they quite cut it, any suggestion on who would be better?

nominee will be.

Biden is roundly dismissed on these boards, but he has a long-term party profile among county chairpeople. They know who he is and would support him without much question. Not on ideology alone, but on party stature. In many DUers polls, my own included, I leave him out. That's probably a mistake.

Evan Bayh. Not my favorite Democrat, but a decent soul with twins and a hell of a smart wife, son of an Indiana legend. He's well-funded (has as much dough as Sen. Clinton right now), and could give us Indiana for the first time since the Paleolithic Age. Or he may be the veep pick. We all but ignore him on DU because we prefer other, more liberal candidates, but his chances are not less for that.

Nixon was dead and gone after the 1960 election and later the California gubernatorial election. He threw a fit in public and stomped off in a huff never to be heard from again. He climbed back into public life and won the GOP nomination in 68 and narrowly defeated Humphrey.

Kerry is much smarter than Nixon and has the cash and the qualifications for the job.

I would definitely not take Fate lightly in a poker game; she holds cards we simply can't see.

could run the campaign Kerry ran in 2004. Kerry himself would likely correct mistakes from 2004 and would run a better campaign - though I think his campaign was actually pretty good. With fair media, he would have won.

The question is - who could run better, who is also an incredible man (or woman)?

small margin (to someone who cheated and used every dirty trick in the book). John Kerry's a better, smarter and more ready candidate than he's ever been. He's stronger than ever, he's got more fight than a nest of angry hornets and he's so ready for this.

I want him to be the candidate because I truly believe he's the only one who can redeem us. And I'm not just talking about winning the White House. I'm talking about winning the White House and lifting up our trampled spirits. Let me explain why:

Ever since man started passing on stories of courage and heroism there has been the archetype of the beaten hero and the crushed people who have risen up against their oppressors under the leadership and inspiration of the hero who wouldn't stay down. There are many true stories from oral and written history. We need this kind of an epic comeback. Nothing in this would could make me truly BELIEVE than a John Kerry win in 2008. After what they did to him and to us in 2004, I NEED this and I think a lot of other people feel exactly the same way.

What we must do better on is ourselves. We need to rally the fire we have in our hearts like our very existence depends on it.

NEVER give up! NEVER give in! The proud spirit knows only victory.

EVERY area?

Is someone ELSE as fully aware of the corpmedia?

Who is going to stay on the DNC's ass to secure the voting machines?

Any poll this far out will not necessarily reflect anything about winter and spring 2008. It looks to me like Hillary and Kerry are very likely running. Gore ran twice, if he feels that people are lining up behind him - without him actually even running, he could well be tempted.

All I hear about are those old guard stalwarts. Time has CHANGED. Let's get some younger, fresher, more ideological and win hungry people in the fight. Don't be so CONSERVATIVE.

way back to cave days.

As a certified old person, I'd like to kick your butt for knocking age as a disqualifying component to the presidency.

I'll hold off if you're a Democrat, but if you're a Republican, you need to travel with an armed contingent.

Kerry receives a higher liberal rating from numerous liberal interest groups -- and invariably outranks most of the younger folks you might prefer.

Age doesn't determine sensibility. But policy shapes history.

We could do a damn sight worse than John Kerry. And have, often.

and has some experience.

I agree with Old Crusoe that age doesn't matter in this regard - but experience and knowledge of the political scene in DC and abroad will be key to the candidate I vote for.

I would be interested to know your recommendations among the younger or less 'conservative' set?

and who is not a Yale graduate, if you what to do some research look into how many Presidents and VP's were from Yale, it's like a brotherhood you know.

being "time tested" or "tested by fire."

While the nature of humanity itself is new blood: the old die off and leave the world to the next generations, there is a natural order for the transition of power. This is why in nearly every culture the old blood is the ruling blood until the new blood is ready to take over.

I'll vote for experience and for the best qualified before I vote for a fresh new face. And win hungry doesn't always translate into a win.

If you really want an infusion of new blood in politics, then vote for the candidate who is most likely to give us new blood by the choices he or she has made and will likely make in the future. Which candidate voted most often for diversity, for example?

Gore and Hillary
Gore and General Clark

Although, she'll ROCK in her second term as NY's junior senator!

As for Al Gore.. ... he insists there's no way he's running and I tend to believe him.

I'm guessing that because the spotlight was focused so much on him as a result of his movie, people automatically assume it's a signal of some sort that he has bigger fish to fry.

I don't think he'll run though.

Not so sure if General Clark will do it again either.. I don't think he's made up his mind yet.

smart people. we have good choices to make.

While I know he has no chance at winning, and while I will vote for Hillary in November, I want to send the message to her, that I DON'T want her running for President. Hopefully if Tasini does well enough in the primary, it will convince Hillary not to run.

But if it is close this time I'll vote for most Democrats. Hilary I won't vote for though under any condition.

If it looks like a landslide for the Demos, I'll vote for the Green Party candidate. I want to see another party grown and replace one of the two major parties. The Repugs should join the Whigs in the trash pile of history.

?

If it shits on Hillary just about anything is acceptable...until Sept 13th of course.

I dont ever watch FOX, so I would know.

I like Hillary well enough......but I just don't want another Pundit created president or candidate!

Bill that is. He can be Vice President if I understand correctly. Wouldn't that be a pisser. The right-wingers would shit a collective brick.

hands down

but I really want Gore to take his rightful place as president. He's the only one who can save us from ourselves: environment, Iraq, jobs, education, healthcare, everything

Gore isn't bad, but Kerry has more charisma. Gore, really did run a boring campaign. Kerry's seemed so much more alive and full of excitement.

I think lot of Gore's supposed lack of charisma was a media construct. For some reason there was a full court press on in the 2000 election to raise doubts about Gore's persona.

They did the same thing to Kerry in 2004----the Maureen Dowd misquote of Kerry commenting on Nascar crowd sentiment was repeated over and over to make him seem like a geek.

If one or two influential people in the media started saying, "Wow, Gore has charisma", it would have circulated like wild fire and convinced the sheeple. Kerry was described as charismatic back in 2000. Then I heard that GOP Ed Rodgers guy start saying right after Kerry won the primary, "Have you heard him? What a bore. He just drones on and on." (I, myself, never found him boring.)

John Edwards was never deemed charismatic when he first ran for the Senate here in NC. North Carolinians mostly saw him as a refreshing new face. Then Clinton and Carville anointed him as charismatic, and so it took off.

What matters right now is this November. At present, I don't give a damn about Gore or Kerry except inasmuch as they can campaign for other Dems, and my concern about Clinton is her (near-certain) reelection to the Senate rather than any possible presidential run.

First things first. Beat the Republicans in November, *then* start squabbling amongst ourselves about who's going to be the Presidential candidate.

While it is nice for a Kerry supporter that he is rising in 2008 polls, the ball we have to keep our eyes on is 2006.

Personally, I'm very grateful for all the hard campaigning and fundraising that Senator Kerry has done for a Democrats running in '06. We don't know if he will even run in 2008, but I am appreciative that Senator Kerry, who has raised and donated the most to other democrats this election cycle, is rising in any opinion polls.

he doesn't want his family drug through the mud again. I hope I'm wrong, but he seems clear in saying he has no intentions to run for president.

She's a terrific campaigner, and she'll be the next president, IMO.

I think Senator Clinton will stay in her present position as long as the voters of New York want her there.

But, Chief Justice Hillary Clinton......oh yeah!

Right now it's all about name recognition. A year from now the results will look far different.