Who would you vote against? Hillary 40%, Giuliani 17%, Obama 11%, Romney 7%, Huckabee 5%, Edwards 2%

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. They're so blinded Hillary's celebrity that they don't realize we actually need to win in 2008.

she was ever going to get 61%?

We've been told her that half the country would vote against her. Now it's 40%. No candidate is going to get 60% anyway.

Her negatives are off the charts compared to the other candidates. We're headed for catastrophe with Hillary.

It's nonsensical to say divisive candidates can't win. Reagan was divisive. Bill Clinton was divisive. George W. Bush was/is divisive.

There is no mythical candidate that everybody will love.

You worry that her negatives will get worse, but in fact, they've gotten better since she's been campaigning.

This would cost us in the House and especially the Senate.

We're going to pick up plenty of seats in both houses, no matter who we nominate.

Whoever we nominate will have high negatives by the time the election occurs. I see no reason to attempt to nominate somebody the right-wing likes: first, there IS no such candidate and second, I WANT the right-wing to hate our candidate.

least viable, and least progressive option?

You are a supporter so maybe you can answer this. In what way is she not the worst candidate we could choose?

I believe she'll win handily if she's our nominee, and I believe she'd make a great president.

...of that we can be sure.

:(

Senate majority if we nominate Hillary and say goodbye to Dean's wildly successful 50-state strategy).

are possibly counting on Hillary's failure to win in order to destroy Dean's 50-State Strategy --- which I kind of think of as "democracy".

Some individuals out there are greatly afraid of a government of, by, and for the people. These sorts have been around since the founding of the nation and with our current system of campaign finance they wield a lot of power.

If they support Hillary then there will be a "real race" and the Republican candidate will likely win -- and they will get their permanent Republican majority.

If Hillary is elected we will have to work our asses off to make sure the down-ticket Dems win.

:(

More, if she makes Richardson her VP choice.

...40 percent of everyone polled, indicates that the candidate they most
want to prevent from being President is Hillary.

Of these people, 17 percent were Democrats! 42 percent of those identifying
themselves as "other" (Independents) totally reject her.

These percentages reflect the reality. You aren't going to find Republicans
who would cross over and vote for her. She's not going to have pull with
Independents. And nearly 25 percent of our own party can't stand her.

Can you spell...recipe for disaster?

We don't have time to argue with the Hillary fans on this one. They don't
see it, so all we can do is work our asses off trying to secure another Dem (and
I'd be comfortable with any of them!) as our nominee.

Geez. As if her warmongering, neocon votes aren't bad enough--she's got mind-blowing
negatives. She's political suicide for the Dems.

pose in the General Election.

Hillary is also the most divisive Democratic candidate.

Hillary Nomination = Most electoral risk for the Least Democratic gain.

Why take the chance? :shrug:

Why would Democrats risk so much for someone who offers us NOTHING?

Hillary has NOT used her power as a NY Senator to stop BushCo. Where
is she on illegal wiretapping or our country losing Habeas? What
has she done about torture? Does she speak out? Does she ever say
that she'll fight to restore our privacy rights...or our right to not
be spied upon...or our right to have our votes counted..or our right to speak
out without the threat of being labeled an "enemy combatant" and detained indefinitely?

The answer to all of those questions is NO! She is not fighting for "We The People",
so why would anyone risk her high negatives and closet full of skeletons???

She offers nothing for Progressives and her votes parallel Lieberman's!

Fucking Seymour Hersch, Sean Penn and my grandmother have said 100 times
more than Hillary Clinton ever has about our democracy being turned to dust.

High risk, low return---on Wall Street they call that a BAD INVESTMENT!

The real story Is not Republicans voting against Hillary but 17 percent of Democrats say they will vote against her.

candidates and -- as we saw in 2006 -- they WILL stay home of they are unenthusiastic about their candidates UNLESS they are enthusiastic about voting against out candidate.

A Giuliani or Romney vs. Edwards or Richardson election, for example, would result in ultra low Repub turnout. If you replace Edwards or Richardson with Hillary, we get a huge Repub turnout.

could be very dangerous to America's future.

Are you saying that these numbers are false, that these weren't actual Americans voting in this poll?

You never have a word to say about the content. A LOT of people in America do not like her, sorry, but that is a fact.

What on Earth would compel you to take this chance with something as important as the future of our country?

Eventually, it just starts to sound like ego.

Do you consider Rush Limbaugh a relevant opinion?

How about Newsmax?

Or Michele Malkin?

Or Ann Coulter?

Its all part of the same noise machine.

"A LOT of people in America do not like her, sorry, but that is a fact."

So it should be easy to prove without posting the Moonie Times then.

Unless rw garbage sources are all ya got.

I had no idea they were the ones that did the poll. Well, that's a different story all together.

Forget it. You gotta get a new line man. Who stupid do you think we are?

This is the Limpdick effect.

Sometimes I want Clinton to win just to see him burst an artery.