Which Democratic candidate worries you the most?

[Stinky The Clown]

Not that he or she might lose .... but rather, if he or she *wins*.

Just as an example, when Jim Webb first surfaced as a Dem candidate, lots of people were in his shit about having been a Republican. Since then, he's become more or less a darling of the left.

Similarly, Jack Murtha. A hero for saying what he said about the war, he is still who he is. His long voting record ain't a lot to cheer about, if ya know what I mean.

Then there's Bob Casey, Jr. Anti choice Bob, some say. And that is, after all, his stance.

Harold Ford, Jr. Model handsome and a formibible campaigner, he is, to put it mildly, conservative and DLC-esque.

Just a name mention describes this next one: Hillary Clinton.

No doubt I've failed to mention many others.

My question is ..... whether you can vote for the person or not, whether they're right for their constituents or not, what current Dem candidate do you most worry about?

(Note: Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat)

[kaygore]

1. Shoot, I was going to pick Lieberman

[KyndCulture]

2. Hilary.

[brentspeak]

14. Isn't she already IN Congress?

She's running for reelection, not election.

[Totally Committed]

3. Hillary Clinton... or should I say "Billary"????

If she decides to run for POTUS, and gets the nom., I sincerely believe we are in for 4 - 8 more years Republican in the White House. And, that's if she wons OR loses. (But, truth be told: I think she's unelectable.)

TC

[pnwmom]

10. The question was, who would you worry about if s/he WINS.

I think we'd be in good hands if Hillary actually won the Presidency. But I'm afraid she wouldn't.

[Totally Committed]

21. Here's what worried me about a possible win by her:

"I sincerely believe we are in for 4 - 8 more years Republican in the White House. And, that's if she wons OR loses."

I don't feel we'd be in good hands if she won, and even worse ones if she didn't.

Either way... I don't want her nominated. Period.

TC

[pnwmom]

26. Do you also think Bill Clinton is essentially a Republican?

Were we just as bad off during his terms as we are now?

Or do you think she is so much more conservative than he is?

Either way, what a crock.

[Dob Bole]

4. Hillary Clinton

Let me explain.

Casey: "Pro-life" is basically a set of two nice words. Whether a candidate is pro-life or not never matters, because the status of Roe v. Wade never changes. It only matters if by "pro-life" the candidate means anti-women's health, (such as opposing Plan B for rape victims, for example) because Senators can affect that. There is no indication that Casey intends any harm.

Ford: While he is uber-centrist, he would be tons better than Bill Frist.

Webb: same situation. Socially moderate southerners are better than Republican southerners.

While some of these candidates spend their time trying to LOOK centrist, Clinton actually is. She voted for the war, and that doesn't sit with me very well.

[pnwmom]

13. Hillary is NOT a centrist. She's more progressive than 90 Senators,

including the vast majority of Democratic Senators, according to ProgressivePunch.

You can view her voting record here.

http://www.progressivepunch.com/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=63&y=11

[AtomicKitten]

17. how that factual information is received at DU ...

[brentspeak]

18. ...

:applause:

[Totally Committed]

22. I actually resent that...

I don't find her OR the faction of this Party which she is a major member to be "progressive" in the slightest.

Her (and their) position on war vs. peace, rich vs. poor, little guy vs. big corporation is nowhere near "progressive".

She's a war-mongering corporate tool. I am not blocking my ears to "information" -- are you covering your eyes to it?

TC

[AtomicKitten]

23. You are looking at one vote.

A BIG one to be sure, but no different than 27 other Senators. Her voting record doesn't match up with your allegations. All the names you call her are gratuitous grotesque exaggerations of reality.

Unless you hold the same scorched earth opinion about all the others that voted yes on the IWR, my comment stands.

I'm not blind; on the contrary. You are being unfair.

Frankly I am sickened by her getting slammed from the right accusing her of being an ultra-liberal and from the left accusing her of being a "war-mongering corporate RW tool." Obviously both can't be right and, in reality, neither are. It my nature to step in when truth and fairness are being trounced, like now. Resent that if you feel you must.

[pnwmom]

25. Instead of calling her names, you should read her Nov. 05 statement

on the war. The whole thing. I would have copied the whole thing here, if it weren't against the rules.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/press/view/?id=555

In October 2002, I voted for the resolution to authorize the Administration to use force in Iraq. I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented by the Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections, and the argument that the resolution was needed because Saddam Hussein never did anything to comply with his obligations that he was not forced to do.

SNIP

Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban.

Before I voted in 2002, the Administration publicly and privately assured me that they intended to use their authority to build international support in order to get the U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, as articulated by the President in his Cincinnati speech on October 7th, 2002. As I said in my October 2002 floor statement, I took "the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

Instead, the Bush Administration short-circuited the U.N. inspectors - the last line of defense against the possibility that our intelligence was false. The Administration also abandoned securing a larger international coalition, alienating many of those who had joined us in Afghanistan.

SNIP

I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the President and his Administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war.

SNIP

[panader0]

5. Hillary

Arecent poll somewhere had Rudy Giuliani beating her (If those were the two candidates for pres) Yikes! Giuliani is another moran, yet more popular than Hillary. Please don't run Hillary, and please announce it soon.

[napi21]

6. Sorry, you may want to dismiss him, but my answer is still

Leiberman! He's been told, in no uncertain terms that we don't want him anymore, and I think it would be a severe blow to the Party if somehow hewon with the Pub and Ind. vote!

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Lieberman is in the same category as any Republican ......

... and as such doesn't deserve to be considered more gently.

By that, I mean to say that we may not like .... Joe Dokes (D)Anywhere for his vote for this issue or against that issue, we can discuss Dokes in the same way the Hatfields are free to discuss Hatfield children. Lieberman is a McCoy child now.

[longship]

8. My metric is that there is no worry if he/she can defeat a Repuke.

The sole measure is taking back the House and Senate. I don't care what flavor of Democrat they are. I'll take them all. As long as they have a "D" after their name, they are very, very cool with me.

Once we get a stable majority, then we can afford to be more picky. In the meantime, the solution is to get involved in your local party organization and help turn things around for us.

[pnwmom]

11. Exactly. The bottom line,

every Democratic win puts us one more vote closer to a majority.

[brentspeak]

16. Agreed. I don't see how this thread can be productive.

[ACK]

9. What about Warner?

I mean he is kind of DLC'esque. But he was a governor and does not have some long-ass voting record in say the Senate to shoot down. Plus he is pretty likable.

I mean he was a pretty moderate popular governor here in VA but it would be nice to have popular populist more-progressive candidate but then again I cannot think of any governors available to run that have that record.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. I'm not sure I understand .......

.... are you saying you think Warner would be a good pres candidate? Or are you saying you'd worry if he became the pres candidate?

[ACK]

20. Well both?!? Asking what other people think

On one hand he is a really good person and honest and damn likable. Also being a governor is a plus.

But on the other hand he is not as liberal or progressive as I would like.

[OzarkDem]

12. Hillary

Also agree re Ford.

[pnwmom]

19. No winning Democrat would worry me in the slightest.

At least not in 2006.

Suppose a conservative Democrat wins an office. If that conservative Democrat hadn't won, the chances are very high that a conservative Republican would have won -- not some liberal Democrat. An electorate who would choose a conservative Democrat is conservative.

Give me a conservative Dem over a conservative Repub any day. One would help us get control of the House or Senate. The other would be a constant vote for Bush and the neocons.

[Sparkly]

24. I agree.

There are some who'd worry me if they won primaries, from fear they couldn't win against their Republican opponents.

And there are certainly some Democrats I'd prefer to see in office over other Democrats.

But in general, ANY Democrat in office -- especially this year -- is a good thing!! I can't think of one that would worry me.