****** 2008: You heard it here first ---------- Clinton/Obama *******

[rhombus]

Hillary's support is strong and wiil grow. Among the Democratic base, there are some who will vote for the Clintons no matter what. Its a strong loyalty thing, and I think the Clinton brand is well ingrained into their psyche. Hillary will get a majority of the women's vote in any primary against her male counterparts. That's reality. She also has very strong support among the African-American community which makes one heck of a difference in any primary.


In a crowded field, Hillary will win the primary rather easily because the Clinton base of support is very loyal.

And why will she have Barack Obama as her vice? Well, he complements her strengths by adding a certain level of charisma to the ticket. Obama will draw a ton of first-time young voters.

[babylonsister]

1. Scratch Clinton, then we'll talk.

"Hillary's support is strong and wiil grow. Among the Democratic base, there are some who will vote for the Clintons no matter what."
Maybe not. Lots of candidates to choose from, so the Dem base doesn't have to go with Hillary. Way too early to go out on that limb for me. But have fun!

[SharonRB]

5. I'm with you, Sister

I think Gore will jump in in the spring or summer and things will change dramatically at that point. As far as I'm concerned, he's the best we've got on all counts and there's really nothing they can swiftboat him with that no one's heard before -- e.g., he said he invented the Internets (NOT), etc.

Anyone ahead as far as Hillary is this early rarely, if ever, gets the nomination. It's far from over.

:hi:

[babylonsister]

6. I don't know about Gore or Clark; I'm waiting to see who shakes out.

There's so much time to figure it out, contemplating now is giving me a headache!
My biggest fear is that the one with the most money wins. That's not the way it's supposed to work, and I'll be real disappointed if that's the case.
We shall see!
:hi:

[SharonRB]

9. I agree

I definitely don't want Hillary to win just because she has the most bucks.

[peace13]

2. Ticket to disaster IMHO. n/t

[LibDemAlways]

62. Yep. Totally agree. Have yet to hear a

convincing argument detailing how Hillary could win an electoral victory.

[skipos]

3. Sorry, I have heard that about 1000 times!

I don't think Hillary has it locked up, and personally, I hope isn't nominated.

[Buzz Clik]

54. No kidding. This wasn't even the first time today.

[SaveElmer]

4. It's possible...I think a Clinton/Clark ticket is more likely...nt

[FrenchieCat]

34. I heard Clinton/Richardson.......for banking on the Southwest

which is more purple than the south.

[SaveElmer]

35. Yeah that makes some sense too...

I guess it would depend on how the campaign played out...

[jefferson_dem]

55. Oh LORD! I hope not. Totally uninspiring...

:boring: X 2

[Pirate Smile]

38. or Clinton/Bayh or Clinton/Warner or Clinton/Webb

I just don't think that when you are breaking one barrier (first woman president)that they are going to also go for breaking a second barrier (first black VP) at the same time.

I was thinking that if a white guy (like Gore) wins the nomination, then Obama would probably be VP but I don't think Edwards could go there - he would need to add experience, perhaps Clark.

[Clark2008]

7. Well... there goes the purple states....

into the hands of the Republicans.

[EndElectoral]

8. My God, let's hope not. i don't want the GOP in the Executive 4 more years.

[Lerkfish]

10. that would be a DLC wetdream, wouldn't it?

:shrug:

the only thing better for the DLC is if Lieberman could also be secretary of Defense.

[snowbear]

11. Clinton will be OUT of the race by April 27th, 2007

Too many people here are buying into the media spin.

She will be ----OUT---- of the race by Friday, April 27th. Mark your calendars.

[mnhtnbb]

19. Boy will I drink to that!

[wyldwolf]

12. Clinton leads in Ohio, 15 pts over Obama in New Hampshire

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) "holds a three-to-one lead over any Democrat and has a razor-thin lead over leading Republican presidential candidates in the key state of Ohio," according to a new Quinnipiac poll. Clinton leads with 38%, followed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) with 13% and John Edwards (D) at 11%.

In New Hampshire...

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama and John Edwards, who tie for 2nd place. Clinton gets 40% today, Obama 25%, Edwards 23%. 9% would vote for some other Democrat.

Key finding: Clinton runs 10 points stronger among females than males.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

14. Ok

Do you have name recognition numbers as well? Joe Lieberman was a rock star at this point in the 2004 primaries.

[wyldwolf]

15. interesting thing, this "name recognition" charge.

Doesn't seem to help/have helped Kerry, Edwards, or Gore.

[snowbear]

17. SoOOooOO... you're saying Gore didn't win in 2000?

4 of of 9 of these people would disagree with you:

[wyldwolf]

21. noooo.... why would you assume that?

I said name recognition hasn't/didn't help the Gore, Edwards, and Kerry in 2004 and running up to 2008. Kerry, the Dem who got more votes than any Dem in history, dropped out before he got in because he could get no traction. Edwards, the VP candidate in 2004, is running third for 2008. Gore dragged his feet in 2004 and is doing so now because he isn't sure he can get the needed support.

[snowbear]

22. It was confusing because Gore wasn't a factor in '04 .. sorry... BTW..

Wyldwolf.. you're not on the Hillary bandwagon now are you????

Good Gawd, I hope not! .. Not you???

[wyldwolf]

24. quite honestly, If I had to choose, I'd pick Richardson at this point

[Pirate Smile]

41. If the field stays as it is (no Gore), I think Richardson is going to pick

up significant support as people get serious.

A Governor with significant foreign policy experience - great resume.

[rinsd]

48. But Gore was a factor in 2002 & early 2003 in terms of polling.

Until he announced he wasn't seeking the nomination he (and Clinton) were kicking Lieberman;s ass in the polls.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

26. Which means nothing

Polling results a year out from the first primarys don't mean anything. If Gore or Kerry jumped in now, they'd probably outpoll Obama and Edwards by double digits, which would mean nothing in the hard slog over the next year.

Hillary has a badass poltical posse, which is all that matters, but so does Obama. Show me these same numbers in December, and I'm with you.

[wyldwolf]

28. which means name recognition isn't the factor Hillary detractors pretend it to be.

If it were, Kerry, Edward, and Gore would be polling as high as Hillary.

[rinsd]

49. Both Clinton and Obama are likely to be there.

As you astutely note they are assembling some kick ass campaign teams (Obama just snagged two of the party's top fundraisers).

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

51. Seriously

This is going to be a clash of the titans. TPM is making it sound like Obama is picking up a great deal of Kerry's fundraising network. If people want to post eighteen threads a day about a topic, how about that we've got two seriously great candidates already putting together teams that most people don't have until after the primaries.

[rinsd]

52. The courting of the unions has begun in earnest

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3087509

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

53. Yikes

This is why when people say, "There's still plenty of time left to declare", I think they're high. The big donors are being snapped up, and the unions appear to be next. Completely brutal for anyone not willing to go right into Top Gear.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

23. What are you talking about?

I'm talking about primary polling involving current candidates, and Edwards is getting a name ID boost, second only to somebody who's been in the national spotlight for 14 years.

[wyldwolf]

25. Edwards is actually running third behind someone no one had heard of two years ago

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

27. Which, after the ID boost, speaks to something

And, uh, you can get where I'm coming from.

[wyldwolf]

29. what ID boost? The logic of the "name recognition" devotees says...

...the candidate whose name is and has been out front is the beneficiary of the boost.

John Kerry - 2004 nominee, most votes of any Dem in histor, fizzles in the 2008 race.
John Edwards - 2004 VP nominee, running distand third in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Al Gore - VP for 8 years under Bill Clinton, 2000 Dem nominee, dragged his feet in 2004 and in the run-up to 2008 because he can't get traction.

[mnhtnbb]

32. But in Iowa he leads both Obama and Hillary by more than 10 points

[wyldwolf]

33. must be name recognition, huh?

[rinsd]

47. Time to put that Lieberman meme to bed

"Joe Lieberman was a rock star at this point in the 2004 primaries"

He was never a rock star in terms of media attention or poll leads but he was the "frontrunner" when neither Gore nor Clinton was included in prelim polls all thru 2002 and early 2003.

After both made clear they were not running, he was in the lead but not by much.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem2.htm

So basically Clinton (and Gore for that matter) are popular enough(both generally and amongst Democrats) to be considered serious contenders the moment they throw their hat in the ring.

[Lerkfish]

37. ah, but the same study says Clinton has the largest bloc who don't like her

with a 49-24 percent favorability.

:shrug:

I think the whole thing is bizarre at this point, frankly.

[wyldwolf]

42. 49% trumps 24% everytime

[Lerkfish]

44. no, there's a difference between a solid favorable, and a "better than the

rest" number.

I don't want a nominee by default.

[wyldwolf]

56. If I have 49% and you have 24%, I win

[Lerkfish]

58. only at this point, and against certain candidates. lemme splain it ya

Kelly is extremely well liked.
bobby is not well liked.
But chris is absolutely hated.
Susan is liked reasonably well.

If bobby runs against chris, he'll win. That makes him the better choice IN THAT SITUATION.

But suppose bobby has to run against Susan because chris steps down?

At that point, bobby is going to lose. That makes him the worst choice IN THAT SITUATION.

If we wanted to win, what should we have done? nominate Kelly, of course.


like I said, I don't want a candidate that wins by default, that's promoting mediocrity, a favorite chant of the DLC. "go for the middle of the road".

Instead, I want the absolute best, brightest, most shining candidate possible. Is that wrong?

[Imagevision]

65. Clinton leads in Ohio, 15 pts? - how absurd, people quote polls like the election was in 2 months...

Question: where will the candidates popularity be in 22 months??? will those so inclined be posting updates to the polls the entire time??

(some people have too much time on their hands?)

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

13. Whateva

Its a year before the first primary, the polling is stupid at this point (ask embattled incumbent President Lieberman), and the "Hillary Beats Obama Among Black Voters" shit means no more than it does among white voters (isn't Obama's name recognition still under 20%, while Hillary's is near 100%?). The rest, like everthing else at this point, is conjecture.

Lame, yo.

[fuzzyball]

16. What? Go all out for first woman & first black?

No chance. It just won't fly in 2008.
May be in 2024. But not now.

[mnhtnbb]

18. Ticket to disaster. Not a single southern state will swing.

[snowbear]

20. On Leno last night, Hillary was BOO'd by the audience.. and Vilsack (yes.. VILSACK!!) was cheered !!

It just goes to show me how OFF-WHACK these polls are the media is shoving down our throats..

[mnhtnbb]

31. The polls are BS. Cell phones and unlisted numbers are never contacted.

[Ninja Jordan]

30. Actually, I heard it here 50th

And it's a dumbass ticket.

[Superman Returns]

36. Wrong

If Clinton wins the nom, then its going to be Clinton/Richardson or Clinton/Bayh or maybe even Clinton/Clark.

[SteveM]

39. But he will draw fire because of his confiscatory gun policy.

Obama is subject to big-time swift-boating, not because of the concocted FAUX news stuff about his name and religious background, but because of his advocacy of prohibiting sale and possession of all semi-automatic weapons. This is a really far-out position, and being on the same ticket with Hillary (a figure hated by the far right) may keep her from pulling it off. Some one like Richardson might be a smarter choice.

By the way, isn't it time to bring out the gun policies of ALL Dem candidates to see what is a problem and how to deal with it?

[Apollo11]

60. Cute metaphor ... NOT

So Obama will "draw fire" from gun-nuts? Because NRA rhymes with KKK ...

Since when was protecting children's lives a "really far-out position"?

Sorry - but if you really want to use assault weapons, join the Army.

[derby378]

63. What's an "assault weapon?"

And no, I should not have to join the military and submit myself to the whims of this madman in the Oval Office just to exercise my Constitutional right to own a firearm, thank you very much.

[Infinite Hope]

40. I heard it elsewhere first. And it'll never happen...

1)There are many who could pair up with her who are charistmatic.
2)They won't have a ticket with two minorities (female/black) when neither have ever held the office of P or VP.
3)They'll have someone who could strongly pull independents and moderate Republicans more (Clark, Edwards, many many others)
4)In addition to #3, the Clinton's are very close with Clark and he's got a virtual lock on the #2 spot on her ticket.

[marions ghost]

43. So who are

these women who support Hillary? & Why don't I ever encounter them? & Why do I only know women who are NOT voting for Hillary? I'm not much in touch with the business world. Is this where there are lots of women supporting her? Right now I'm talking about Democrats.

(sincere question...I honestly don't see this)

[ima_sinnic]

61. I so agree! mark me down as another woman who does NOT support H

--not to mention the fact that I vote on merit, not on gender or race -- and HRC has not done anything particularly meritorious.

[Meshuga]

45. Someone/Feingold is my ticket

I am undecided as far as the current people running but I am hoping the nominee will pick Feingold for VP.

[HRCis4ME]

46. Makes sense with Hillary and Russ.

That makes the best sense. HRC or could be well balanced with Feingold.

[harveyc]

50. No chance ...

pragmatically, a woman and a black ticket would have too much shock impact. Plus, lacking of experience.

Someone like Clark would be an asset, i.e. national security.

Look for anyone but Barack, Hillary wants to win!

[ripple]

57. Both are too pragmatic to do that- think experience

We won't see any of the current 'top tier' (Clinton, Obama, or Edwards)candidates together on the same ticket. If any one of them gets the nod, they will need to choose a VP candidate with serious foreign policy experience. All three are far too pragmatic to do otherwise.

Enter General Wesley Clark and Senator Jim Webb.

Not that both of the above contenders couldn't be at the top of the ticket in his own right. I'm just referring to the 'top tier' of those who have announced.

[goodhue]

59. No, I've heard it elsewhere previously

And I certainly hope not

[Imagevision]

64. Hillary should be so lucky for a Hllary/Obama ticket, but doubt he's running for VP.

[cadmium]

66. I heard if first on Raw Story. Now you have me wondering -- I would

prefer to keep the senate in Dem hands so maybe I will lean toward Edwards - Clark