Presidential Preference Poll--April 11-12

Presidential Preference Poll--April 11-12

Announced candidates only (sorry, Clark/Gore people).

I mean, I don't even know why Gravel is in the poll.

including myself...

Is this an anomaly or is Richardson gaining traction on the netroots?

Compare:

Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, and Richardson on a selection of topics with focus on Bush’s War. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1QF8BZ74Q

Transcripts are available for your perusal at http://www.moveon.org / and click on Iraq Town Hall.

..............................

Obama subsequently won in MoveOn's straw poll, but MoveOn posted two sets of results:

<snip>

Now, here are the full results from the Virtual Town Hall vote (remember, this does not imply a MoveOn endorsement):

Sen. Barack Obama 28% www.BarackObama.com
Sen. John Edwards 25% www.JohnEdwards.com
Rep. Dennis Kucinich 17% www.Kucinich.us
Gov. Bill Richardson 12% www.RichardsonForPresident.com
Sen. Hillary Clinton 11% www.HillaryClinton.com
Sen. Joe Biden 6% www.JoeBiden.com
Sen. Chris Dodd 1% www.ChrisDodd.com

These candidates' views differed in quite a few areas, but they all rejected President Bush's plan and agreed that it's time to start bringing the troops home. Imagine what it would mean to have an anti-war candidate in the White House. Think about it.

<snip>

Thanks for all you do.

–Adam, Justin, Carrie, Anna, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Thursday, April 12th, 2007

P.S. MoveOn members who watched the Town Hall at one of the parties voted differently from those who did not. Here are how the folks who attended the event ranked their choices:

Sen. John Edwards 25%
Gov. Bill Richardson 21%
Sen. Barack Obama 19%
Rep. Dennis Kucinich 15%
Sen. Joe Biden 10%
Sen. Hillary Clinton 7%
Sen. Chris Dodd 4%

.....................................

There is a distinct probability that a higher % of those who watched the Town Hall at one of the MoveOn parties watched ALL of the videos, while a lower % of those who watched the Town Hall on their own watched ALL of the videos, therefore, perhaps candidate partisans account for at least some of the differences between the two sets of results.

Kucinich, esentially because I want to help pull the center of the party to the left, away from Hillary, thus giving Edwards a better chance.

I'm also still quite positive toward Edwards and I WANT to be positive toward Obama, but Obama said the least; I was disappointed by that. Hillary equivocated with "redeployment" and "no plans for permanent occupation nor bases".

Richardson suprised me with his emphasis on no timeline for Iraq, bring them home right now, start tomorrow with legislation that revokes the permission granted in the IWR, absolutely no residual force, two diplomatic fronts: one within Iraq in which the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds are required to start all over anew to solve their problems amongst themselves (because, as is fairly obvious, their status quo, with its American taint, is not acceptable to them); the other diplomatic front within the whole region to address all of their security needs, and thus our concerns about Al Qaeda. He says pursue the purse-strings approach to ending the war, but don't rely on it alone. Also create and pass legislation that revokes permission for IWR and follow it all of the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

I take it as an indication of dissatisfaction with the leading three candidates. And I do think it's a real phenomenon among the netroots.

I'm a Democrat. I make under $50,000 a year. (Way under.) I repeat, who else?

Can we get someone with real foreign policy experience please?

were for American pie?

Did I not just say that I would support Richardson?

No, his four nominations were not for American Pie, they are part of the reason why I would support Richardson. But I respect Clark's fight to stop a war in Iran before it starts, his tireless work electing democrats in 06, his role in Kosovo and a long list of other support-worthy endeavors.

P.S. - Your persuasion skills could use a brushing up.

real foreign policy experience, so, though I might agree with you in re your P.S., I'd say that your P.S. also applies to you if you didn't mean to imply that about Richardson.

I think Richardson is the ONLY announced candidate with any real foreign policy experience. However, I think Clark may have more of what we will need to win in 08. I'd be happy with either.

It scares me to think we are going to rely on any of the others to not only repair international relationships (which I think any of the other candidates could probably do), but to get us out of the multitude of problems Bush has us in (which I think Clark or Richardson would be best suited to do).

fundamental to what America will become in the near future. What is Clark's position in regard to a "more or less" "permanent" presence and/or permanent bases?

P.S. Sorry about the use of the " ", but all of us know that there will always be questions about what the definition of _________ is.

"A public US declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would also be helpful in engaging both regional and Iraqi support at this point."

http://securingamerica.com/articles/wapo/2005-08-26

This is a small blurb, I know, but it is straight from Wes's mouth so I figured it would suffice. There are plenty of other opinions on Iraq in the linked article. Give it a look!

I agree whole-heartedly that we can't leave vestiges of 'empire' behind when we leave Iraq, but at the same time I don't think we should pack up and head out without a clear plan that is agreed upon by all affected parties.

They're all decent, but I'm holding out for someone better (like Gore, or maybe Clark).

Obama's decent, Edwards is okay (I did vote for him for VP, after all!), Kucinich is good but has no chance, etc...

They're all essentially tied right now for me. I do know the ones I don't want to win the nom very much: Clinton and Biden. Even if they win, I'll work and vote for them, just like I did for Kerry in 04 and (worked for) Gore in 00.

Let's do this, DU.