This is why we need Obama, NOT HILLARY

[ButterflyBlood]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/March%202007/Thompsonvs.ObamaClinton20070323.htm

Thompson trails Obama by double digits, yet leads Hillary by one. A statistical tie, but regardless, much weaker.

Thompson's an unknown. So why is he doing so well against Hillary? Because of the Hillary haters. He's pulling the folks who aren't willing to vote for Hillary under any circumstances whatsoever. They aren't so strong against Obama.

It's unlikely Thompson will be the GOP nominee, but the point is clear. Hillary's negatives are just too high. And the poll shows this further:

Obama:
Favorable - 54%
Unfavorable - 36%

Clinton:
Favorite - 50%
Unfavorable - 48%

With only 2% undecided, Hillary's already at 48% unfavorable. Enough said. NO HILLARY.

[obaman08]

1. I agree..

but even more to end this Bush Clinton Bush thing going on. IF it continues that would mean that for at least 24, maybe 28 years of presidencies have been run by two families, and who knows if jeb or any other Bush or Clinton decides to run in the future. I would just like a fresh perspective, and Obama seems to have one.

[Big Pappa]

2. Sen Clinton

has very little room to move up. She is very polarizing to people on the right and left.

[William769]

3. You keep thinking that.

But it ain't gonna happen.

[ButterflyBlood]

4. Great. Let's not even bother to hold the primaries

Let's just proclaim Hillary the nominee and let that be that. That appears to be what many on DU basically want.

[aquart]

6. Not me. I want primaries. I don't, however, want Obama.

[ButterflyBlood]

9. Who then? Edwards?

I'm fine with Edwards. He's a good guy and a good candidate. At least he's capable of winning, which Hillary is not.

[William769]

And where is your proof Mrs. Clinton can't win, besides your hatred to wards her?

Bill Clinton couldn't win, and he was President twice and beat Impeachment!

ON EDIT: That should read that He was elected twice.

[ButterflyBlood]

15. see poll above

n/t

[ZinZen]

40. Hillary does not equal Bill

Bill won in the early nineties, and oozed tons of charisma. Hillary does not have that going for her. In fact, she is the polar opposite. The Clintons time has come and gone. No more dynasties.

[BearSquirrel2]

83. Hillary is a competent strong female ..

Competent strong females tend to raise resentment amongst men and most especially amongst women. The Republicans have invested a LOT of money bashing Hillary since the early 90s. They will get their money's worth if Hillary wins the nomination.

I am not a huge fan of Hillary. I think she ran to the right in order to suit the "mood" of the nation. Now she's even against the health care reform that made her such a target for outrageously unfair attacks against her person. The candidate we choose should be the one who has been RIGHT on the issues all along. Hillary will get killed on her war position the same way Kerry did. Hillary once had pretty good center-left credentials. But her rightward leanings as of late will make her susceptible to accusations of waffling almost as bad as what McCain will face.

Obama has a chance because he was on the right side of that issue to begin with.

[ends_dont_justify]

88. Bingo

Hillary Rodham Clinton may not be 'evil', she just isn't the candidate for me. I understand she would make a good candidate or POTUS, however I think there are better choices. Those who reflect themselves through their work, both on a federal and state scale, show who they are and define themselves. Hillary does not define herself. She hides in the shadows and clamors in popularity....NOT the kind of president I want. I want a strong backboned dem...Obama has voted in many contreversial bills and ammendments, Hillary, however, has not. Except the ones she voted the wrong way in.

[Colobo]

22. Well, I want Obama and will vote for him.

[William769]

7. I'm fine with that.

But that is not what many on DU want BTW.

[liberal renegade]

5. deep down inside

we all know Hillary will be the next POTUS.

[ButterflyBlood]

8. nice scientific method there

:eyes:

[liberal renegade]

14. WTFE!

Not trying to be a scientist, it's just a fact, jack.....:smoke:

[ButterflyBlood]

16. not as far as I'm concerned

I'm worried with our best chance to take the White House in years we'll blow it by nominating such a HORRIBLE candidate like Hillary. It'd be like the GOP nominating Jeb.

[Colobo]

23. Rudy would beat her... easily.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Agreed on Obama over Hillary but polls don't mean squat at this point

In fact, they won't mean squat until the night before Iowa, so pace yourself.

[ripple]

11. I don't think DU is in as much of a bubble as we assume sometimes

I was just thinking earlier today (when I saw yet another post bemoaning the attacks on Hillary) that what's happening here on DU is probably symptomatic of the dislike many have for her in the overall population. Some people have an almost irrational dislike for her.

I support Obama over Hillary for a variety of reasons, but I certainly don't dislike her personally. If she gets the nod, she's got my vote. I'll be deeply concerned about all of the votes she won't be getting, though.

[ButterflyBlood]

20. I think you hit the nail on the head

If Hillary is so unpopular on DU, imagine her nationwide.

[paulk]

62. well, John Kerry was also very unpopular here on DU

in the run up to the primaries...

and during the primaries, even.


So, I don't think your theory holds much water....

[ButterflyBlood]

70. and Kerry lost

Not the standard we want to hold.

Hillary is also much difference from Kerry in being already a well known figure nationally. Kerry theoretically could've improved. Hillary can't.

[paulk]

well, there are quite a few people who don't think he lost

they believe the election was stolen.

And if Kerry did indeed lose, the constant trashing he got from ... well, pretty much the same segment of the left that is going after Hillary - certainly didn't help him.


also - as I posted above -

I wouldn't set my opinions in stone based on a Rasmussen poll.

They have consistantly been an outlier when it comes to Bush's popularity, currently giving him a 41% approval rating. Their polling always seems to favor conservative causes, despite their disclaimers.

[ButterflyBlood]

74. Rasmussen was hands down the best pollster in 2004 and 2006

The main reason why Rasmussen's approval ratings for Bush are much higher now is their methodology for such things tends to drag to the center. If we were talking about a President with approval ratings in the mid-high 60s, they'd probably have it in the high 50s/low 60s.

Also such things are not Rasmussen's strength, that'd be Gallup. Typically you should trust Rasmussen for election polls and Gallup for approval polls, but not vice-versa.

[mth44sc]

12. Well actually

I'm a John Edwards kind of guy.

That said - I have no earthly idea at this point what Hillary brings to this race beyond being the wife of a decent President. Obama brings that star quality with few specifincs - eciting to be sure - potential oh yea but...

John Edwards reaches to our core as Demacrats.

Just one man's humble opine...

[ButterflyBlood]

17. I've got no problem with Edwards

Obama's my man, but I'd be fine with an Edwards nomination.

No Hillary and I'm happy.

[mth44sc]

19. I hear that

If Obama is the choice for our party - he has my support. Maybe he is John Kennedy. Its a chance I'd take. With John Edwards I don't feel like I'm just taking a chance...

Just one man's opine.

[laugle]

102. Are you saying you will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee?

[bigtree]

13. we actually need Richardson . . .

. . .but go on . . .

[mth44sc]

18. Hey I like Richardson

Not me first choice - but I think he has nore to offer than Hillary or Obama

Just one man's opine :-)

[obaman08]

21. What are the negatives of Obama and positives of Richardson?

[mth44sc]

24. Experience

on the world stage...

[obaman08]

25. Experience is overrated ...

on the world stage. I am willing to bet Obama can handle world affairs as effectively as Richardson. Edited to add that Richardson is a part of the Clinton camp and as I posted earlier I would like to see someone not directly related to Clinton or Bush get elected to give us a fresh perspective.

[Colobo]

26. Rummy and Dick have a lot of experience, too... :)

[mth44sc]

29. I believe it would be difficult at best

to compare apples with oranges - but if that is all you have...

check the results...

[Colobo]

31. I like Richardson, don't get me wrong.

[BearSquirrel2]

84. Richardson ...

It will be a hard slog for Richardson, however if he stays in the fray till the end he'll make a good VP candidate that will attract Latinos away from the Republicans.

[muntrv]

33. I agree. Richardson is the only one who could turn some of the red states

out west blue.

[Tellurian]

27. Fred Thompson is?

Thompson's an unknown. So why is he doing so well against Hillary? Because of the Hillary haters. He's pulling the folks who aren't willing to vote for Hillary under any circumstances whatsoever. They aren't so strong against Obama.

..The arrival of Fred Thomson on the scene is someone that will give Obama a run for his money. He is a formidable republican candidate that dwarfs Obama's tenure in the senate and his accomplishments by a country mile. Hillary is the only candidate that stands a chance (because of her branding, her husband, and her accomplishments) to be a formidable enough candidate to level the competition.


a little summary of Fred Dalton Thompson, former Senator turned movie star. If you think a minute, you may remember he currently has a starring role in the hit tv series Law and Order.

THOMPSON, Fred Dalton, a Senator from Tennessee; born in Sheffield, Ala., on August 19, 1942; attended the public schools in Lawrenceburg, Tenn.; graduated from Memphis State University 1964; received J.D. degree from Vanderbilt University 1967; admitted to the Tennessee bar in 1967 and commenced the practice of law; assistant U.S. attorney 1969-1972; minority counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (“Watergate Committee”) 1973-1974; special counsel to Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander 1980; special counsel, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1980-1981; special counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee 1982; member, Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission 1985-1987; actor; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in the November 8, 1994, special election to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1997, left vacant by the resignation of Albert Gore, Jr.; took the oath of office on December 2, 1994; reelected in 1996 for the term ending January 3, 2003; not a candidate for reelection in 2002; chair, Committee on Governmental Affairs (One Hundred Fifth and One Hundred Sixth Congresses; One Hundred Seventh Congress ); resumed acting career.

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=T000457

on edit:

...adding his senate photo, he may look somewhat more familiar to you.

and his wiki bio mentions the 08'race: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson

[Colobo]

28. Do you think he might give Rudy a run for his money?

[Tellurian]

30. This is the man who will be the rep nominee..

He has the street cred, the educ, the experience, and the one to beat!

The others all have too much baggage for the RWing, Evangelicals, Conservatives, Moderates..in short, he fills the bill.

[Colobo]

32. So, do you think he beats Hillary?

[Tellurian]

34. NO.. Her husband wouldn't allow it..

all it means is she will UP her game. Play harder, smarter and go on the offensive.
She has the best team behind her on the face of the earth! And of course, she has ME!

[BearSquirrel2]

85. Rudy is ...

Rudy is a dead on arrival candidate because he's running in the wrong party. That is ... he's dead on arrival once he gets to the south. If you think what Bush did to McCain was cruel, just wait to see what ... WHOEVER ... does to Rudy Giuliani.

OK, let me qualify that. If McCain is "born again", divorces his mistress and remarries a Christo-fascist bell, then neals behind Jerry Falwell and kisses his ass, then and only then does Giuliani have a shot at the nomination.

Big money does own the Republican party. However, Big Jesus elects it's presidential candidates. Giuliani will be MASSACRED in the south, as will the Mormon. Do you think for a second that those fundamentalists will let vote for Romney? There is nothing in the bible about Jesus Christ traveling to America! He might as well be an athiest or a devil worshiper. The fake christo-politicos will give lip service to Romney but the preachers down south (who unlike Republo-politicos actually believe what they say) will tear him apart!!!

[ButterflyBlood]

73. Pick a random person off the street

Ask them who Fred Thompson is. Most won't know. As someone else here said, some might recognize his face, but not his name.

Ask them who Hillary Clinton is, most will know.

Ask them who Barack Obama is, most will know.

[BearSquirrel2]

80. If Fred Thompson wanted to serve so much ...

If Fred Thompson wanted to serve so much, why did he quit the Senate to go back to that "Den of Sin" in Hollywood?

It's amazing to me how Republicans cast aspersions on entertainers as not being serious but can then lift aloft people like Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, etc...

[Bluedogvoter]

35. Fred Thompson needs to only declare his intentions..

to run and he will win the nomination.

At least thats the indication I get from living in a conservative State.

He is famous, with his guest hosting on Paul Harvey making him popular with seniors, and he says what conservatives want to hear.

[Colobo]

36. Wow. I've been underestimating him, then!

[Bluedogvoter]

38. Well, he hasn't said if he will run, but.....

He sure has been making the rounds on the political shows saying very conservative things.

Plus, I work with a bunch of conservatives, they all seem to feel sketchy on voting for Rudy or McCain. They don't care for Rudy's gun and abortion views.

[Tellurian]

37. Yep, and exactly why he initially polled so high his first time out..

BUT, nobody's perfect..and so it goes. When you run for office, any office, all the dirty laundry is made available for public consumption..but thats life. It's like a Tennis Match. You capitalize on your opponents errors and make enough of your own points to WIN. GAME-SET-MATCH!

[AshevilleGuy]

43. He could win white male swing voters like crazy!!

He is just the sort they could vote for, and if Thompson is on the ticket with Rudy, he makes Rudy easy for them to vote for! We underestimate him at our extreme peril!

[Bucky]

53. Also, as a longstanding DA for Manhatten, he'll probably win NY, too!

Fred Thompson is the flavor of the month. He's being market tested, but won't run. He'd be a joke and Rudy would beat the snot out of him.

[ButterflyBlood]

76. No, Rudy won't

Rudy is completely unacceptable to the fundie base.

[AshevilleGuy]

93. They will be good soldiers

and march lockstep to the polls, as they always do. But Thompson on the ticket (VP) will show them that it's okay to vote for Rudy; he will appeal to them in the right way (he is an actor and will know exactly how to do this).

Together, he and Rudy will take millions of white male votes. Don't ignore them, they are deadly.

[ButterflyBlood]

98. My point is the primary

Look at Rudy's pro-choice, pro-gay, extreme anti-gun (more anti-gun than most Democrats) views. That just won't do it in the GOP primary.

[WorldResident]

39. 50% favorable, that's fucking horrible!

:eyes: :sarcasm:

[ripple]

42. It is in a national presidential election.

We're talking favorability ratings here- in other words, do people like her or not? I don't think people who dislike her are likely to change their minds, as I'm guessing her familiarity ratings are plenty high.

According to the poll, 50% of people don't like her. Those aren't exactly betting odds, especially considering the votes that will be siphoned off by third party candidates.

It's just one poll, though. Polls will change.

[ButterflyBlood]

44. with 48% unfavorable, yes it is

She can't move up with these numbers.

[smalll]

41. I can see those numbers as good for Hillary -

she has an even, fighting chance against "as-seen-on-TV" Thompson. Hilllary, who has had everything under the sun from every time in her life thrown at her by her Repub combatants, as opposed to Obama, a nice young man that Real America knows nothing about, and that the Repubs have had almost no time to hit at. A fresh face is always nice, but every new face gets mud on it. I bet you, for example, that amongst the relatively select coterie of average Americans who've vaguely heard of Obama, it is a minority amongst even them who have heard of His Middle Name. That won't last forever, they will be sure of it. Everyone has negatives. Superficial often, but everyone has them. Hillary is a plausible winner, all things considered.

[ButterflyBlood]

45. and yet Obama does better n/t

[smalll]

46. Yes, because America hasn't heard the smears against him yet -

they've heard it all about Hillary, and still she is a plausible winner. At this point, I definitely feel that Presidential Election 2008 at this point faces an electability shortage on both sides, Repub and Democratic. Hillary has her issues that we all know about. But it looks like she could win. That plausibility is in rare supply this time.

[iamjoy]

47. Obama Will NEVER Match Hillary.

True, people have a negative impression of Hillary because of all the dirt that has already been thrown at her. Take some one fresh like Obama, and just wait until they get through with him. Yes, his unfavorables will go up, but I don't think they'll reach the level of Hillary's.

From the very beginning, Hillary seemed to rub some people the wrong way. It's visceral. I haven't talked to anyone who actually dislikes Obama. Some may be neutral or lukewarm, some may think he's overrated, but I don't think anyone will be the lightning rod Hillary has become.

OTOH, Hillary is smart and tough. She knows how to fight, and heaven knows, after 2000 and 2004 we need a candidate who isn't going to take any crap. But, I don't think it will be enough to overcome her likability deficit.

[Tellurian]

50. sorry, Obama best quality is likability..

likability against the republicans is like a cone of ice cream melting in the sun. There isn't time for Obama to be well versed enough or have enough experience to entertain this candidate as an opponent. It would do you well to read the wiki link completely, I posted upthread.

Whether you like Hillary or not, Hillary has been preparing for this fight all her life. She is the strongest candidate we have in the Democratic field right now.

[ripple]

49. Most voters don't know Thompson

Unless over 50% of those polled watch Law and Order, most of the people polled had no idea who he is and what he stands for. Hell, he isn't even a candidate. In other words, she lost to an unknown. That's disturbing, to say the least.

[Tellurian]

51. What? He has been on tv 2-3x a week on Law and Order..

Why don't you people do some research and understand who this man is. His second profession is as an actor. He plays a District Attorney on tv but he was one in real life.. Geebus, the blind leading the blind dancing in the dark.

[ripple]

58. The fact that he's been on a teevee

show does not mean that he has anywhere the name recognition that Hillary has. My point was that it is unlikely that 50% of those polled watch Law and Order and know who he is. Hell, even those who watch it might recognize his face, but have no idea what his name is.

Although I don't watch the show, I know very well who Thompson is. I thought that was clear from my post. Is your reading comprehension really that poor, or were you just in the mood to insult someone? Beats kicking the cat, I suppose. :shrug:

[Tellurian]

59. yeah, ok... peruse this link..

then tell me about your theories..about name recognition..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3178686#3178867

[ripple]

67. I don't deny that Thompson has an impressive resume

I was talking about name recognition and if I might be more specific- political name recognition. I happen to agree with you that if he runs, he will be the most formidable candidate the republicans have to offer. At this point in time, though, he does not have anywhere close to the name recognition that the other candidates have, in terms of the general population.

I also happen to disagree with you about Hillary being the only candidate who can seriously take him on. That is your opinion and it has no basis in fact. Hillary's resume is no more impressive than Obama's, unless we count how many voters she has alienated over the years. In fairness, a lot of people have an irrational and unwarranted dislike for her. Frankly, it's somewhat baffling to me, because I do believe she is a strong leader and that she has handled herself well in the face of adversity.

With that said, there is no evidence at all that Hillary will somehow be a more formidable opponent for Thompson than Obama. Think about it: Thompson has charisma and star power. Who is better to take that head-on? Someone who has alienated masses of people while doing and saying all of the right things, or someone that people tend to gravitate towards and look up to as a leader, even when they don't completely agree with his message? My money's squarely on Obama for that match-up.

[MasterDarkNinja]

48. I agree, Hillary loses to just about anyone in the general election

The polls show that something like 45% of the nation would never vote for Hillary, and something like 18% of democrats (the highest number out of any of the current democrat presidential candidates) say they would never vote for Hillary in the general election. There's just too many people who hate Hillary for her to be a good choice for our nomination.

I think I've said this before about Hillary, but the one good thing about her is her ability to raise a lot of money. However, money can only do so much, I mean look at George W Bush, if he could run for a third term in the White House right now no amount of money in the world could help him win a third term, about the only people who support him now and who would vote for him again are the repugs.

Edwards or Obama would be a better choice right now for us, they come with less baggage, and can actually win some swing states.

[Tellurian]

52. Another ding-a-ling statement..

You have no idea what you are talking about!

absolutely, nothing!

[skipos]

56. HRC doesn't lose to every one in every poll but

Please tell me if you notice a trend here...

This is from Rasmussen, the most accurate pollster in 2006 (and 2004, if you agree with the official results).

Thompson (44%) Clinton (43%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Thompson (37%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

Brownback (41%) Clinton (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Brownback (34%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Gingrich (43%) Clinton (50%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Gingrich (38%) Obama (48%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Giuliani (49%) Clinton (41%) GIULIANI WINS BY 8%
Giuliani (46%) Obama (40%) GIULIANI WINS BY 6%

McCain (48%) Clinton (41%) MCCAIN WINS BY 7%
McCain (44%) Edwards (45%) EDWARDS WINS BY 1%
McCain (44%) Obama (44%) TIED

Clinton's fav/unfavorable ratings are worse than Edwards and Obama, but her name recognition is very high. Compare that to Rudy and McCain, who have very high name recognition, but have fav/unfav ratings that absolutely smoke Hillary's.

[ButterflyBlood]

75. Glad to see somone else who gets it

The posts by these Hillary fans remind me of the post on Free Republic before the 2006 elections, about how polls don't matter and no matter what at the end of the day America would go with conservative government. The basic argument of your typical Hillary defender is Hillary will inevitably be the next President so everyone should just shut up and accept it. Sort of a political hyper-Calvinism.

[SaveElmer]

54. But, but , but I thought polls didn't matter...

That's what everyone says everytime Hillary is ahead in any poll....

[skipos]

55. Hillary generally unperforms Obama or Edwards in gen. elec. polls

and her favorable/unfavorable ratings are worse than both of them even though her name recognition is the highest. Compare that to Dame Rudy and McCain, who have high name recognition and much better fav/unfav ratings.

Does this mean Hillary will lose to anyone if nominated? No. Does this indicate that Hillary might have a tougher time in the general election than other Dem candidates? Yes. One more reason that she should not be our nominee, imo.

Why didn't you respond to me in the other thread?

[SaveElmer]

57. Sorry...didn't see that post..

I will grab the links and post them...I'm in and out all day so sometimes miss replies

[Tellurian]

60. I disagree..

We need to face the Republican nominee with our strongest candidate Sen Hillary Clinton..

and if Fred Thompson accepts his partys nomination, our nominee will be facing him in the general.

click the link to meet this man and understand facing him with anyone else besides Hillary, would be like setting a puppy out to face a Champion Pit Bull Fighting Dog-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3178686#3178867

[skipos]

68. You disagree with what? The fact that Hillary generally underperforms Obama ands Edwards

in general elections polls, and has the highest unfav numbers of all of our currently running dems?

Do you disagree with the fact that Falwell and other Repubs WANT her to be our nominee?

[ButterflyBlood]

72. Can you give any evidence Hillary is the strongest candidate?

Based on actual scientific reasons, such as polls and surveys, not just mindless talking points like "She can fight the Repug smear machine!"

[ButterflyBlood]

71. I'm not ever saying that

Mostly because I have yet to see a poll where Hillary outperforms Edwards or Obama by a margin large enough to be statistically significant.

[zulchzulu]

61. I thought you meant Tommy Thompson...he's more juice than Fred

Tommy Thompson (former governor of Wisconsin and a few other GOP gigs) may still run. He'd be an interesting dark horse the the bland choices the Repugs are running so far...

[Tellurian]

63. Fred Thomson was the impetus for Nixon's take down, pre-Impeachment

He was an assistant to the prosecutor for the Water Gate Scandals.

Fred Thompson is credited with asking Nixon the infamous question.."What did you know and when did you know it?"

Those words are 'carved in stone' and referenced in his Wikiencyclopedia biography. If you have a minute google it,
or scroll down to the bottom of the link I posted up yonder.

[paulk]

64. before putting too much faith in this poll

I would ask why Rasmussen has Bush at 41% approval when everone else has him in the low thirties - (and some in the high twenties).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

[philosophie_en_rose]

65. Bullshit.

I love Obama, but don't need to degrade Clinton to do so.

Things change and there so much time for Clinton to turn things around.

The only barrier to that would be people like you that view her through sterotypes and GOP slander. Way to feed that machine!

Again, Obama is a great candidate. Neither he nor Clinton are my first choice, but I do think each candidate can win on their own merits, without using idiotic, unscientific polls to judge them.

IF POLL NUMBERS EQUALED VOTES, BUSH WOULD NOT HAVE "WON" A SECOND TERM.

[Colobo]

66. Rasmussen had it right in 04 and 06

The guy seems to be pretty accurate.

[skipos]

69. This statement is 100% false:

"IF POLL NUMBERS EQUALED VOTES, BUSH WOULD NOT HAVE "WON" A SECOND TERM."

Immediately before the election, the polls gave a narrow edge to Bush. Here is a collection of polls from different pollsters. The average of all of them gave predicted a Bush win by 2%. FOx News was one of the few pollsters who predicted a Kerry win, by 2%. See for yourself...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html

[ends_dont_justify]

86. I recommend you or anyone interested in the true hillary...

Take a look at the history of votes and actions taken in new york state/city under her term as senator. Forget what she does in the spotlight -- I know that living in new york is no cakewalk and a lot of it is due to her pandering issues.

Yes, btw, I know the governor does a lot more for state and that pataki was a major problem; but a senator should also be reflected by the state he or she is senator of. It would be a far cry to say she has no power over her own state.

[Mass]

77. Given the MOE, they have the same type of positives. The only difference is that many

people do not know Obama. We have no clue how it will go later.

I prefer Obama to Hillary on issues, but I refuse to select a candidate because of polls 10 months before the first vote will be casted. Please, we may as well try American Idol if we care that little.

Here are also other polls for Hillary. As you can see, they are totally different depending of the questions.

http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

So, oppose her because you disagree with her, but spare us the electability factor. If Nelson was running and polled as more electable than Obama, would you support him?

[CRH]

78. Reading this poll begs a bigger question than Clinton or Obama ...

As the Hillary electability debate rages here at DU, I find it very interesting the publics general perception of presidential candidates. And note, this poll is conducted using normal, politically uninformed voters, who experience little more than the nightly news as a source of information for their opinions.

After six years of republican presidential leadership;

- Leading to record deficits.
- Starving domestic programs to the extent that in 2004 nearly every state was technically bankrupt.
- Failing to protect against the worst domestic terrorist attack in history.
- A foreign policy, PNAC, that by pre-design had wars mapped out in advance and then manufactured a reason to elevate us to a war footing.
- Then the subsequent dismal failure of that foreign policy.
- The non response to the greatest domestic natural disaster in over a decade.
- The corruption of intent of congressional legislation through signing statements.
- Need I go on ...

That after all this, the polls still show the general public prefers the leading republican candidate over all democratic candidates.

The general public still has not grasped the planned design behind the republican party, and where it has led us as a society and economy. We are apparently 'enjoying' the highest level of corruption of government and heritage, in our nation's history, while thumbing our nose at a triple deficits to be paid through degradation of our children's future. The very party that has led us to this historical low, with a president that garners 29% approval, still fields a candidate that leads all democrats in the polls.

So whether Clinton is better than Obama, or Edwards, or Gore, or Richardson, etc.; seems anathema to me unless the party leadership removes the blinders from the general public.

I certainly hope the democratic leadership realizes after the various investigations of corruption, that unless the exposure of these hearings takes on the perception of a Nicole Smith importance, it doesn't much matter who the democrats nominate.

That failure to make the corruption fomented by this administration a national issue with impeachment proceedings, will lead to public perceptions that no great crimes or mismanagement has occurred, and/or through default of action will lend power to the public perception of the impotence of democratic leadership.

The question this poll begs, is what actions will the democratic party elite take to bring the corruption of the republican party to the fore front of the average voters limited attention and awareness? And, IMHO, it will take a very public display like impeachment to accomplish this, or Obama, Clinton or whoever, fill in the blank; will be trying to eek out a win in an election that will be within that stealable range. Recent history is not favorable to democrats in close contests.

I'm sorry, I guess this turned into kind of a rant.

edit: added a word for clarity.

[ripple]

79. And an excellent rant at that

I think the media is crucial in this equation. It's a matter of changing the dialog- and just one of the reasons, by the way, that I support Obama. I know you aren't talking about specific candidates, but in my view, reframing the party message needs to be done in tandem with a candidate who can deliver the message in a manner people can relate to and get excited about.

[mtnsnake]

81. Give me Obama OR Hillary

Obama's my first choice because I think he'd be best for healing this divided country, but Hillary would bring experience and wisdom. Either one will make a great president and either one is going to kick the snot out whatever asshole the Republicans throw at us. You can take that to the bank.

[ends_dont_justify]

82. I won't vote for hillary, I just won't vote if she is the democratic nomination

She has been a new york senator for quite some time now -- after appealing to animal rights activists about hating the fur industry, she was caught walking out of her home on the same day with a mink coat. Upon being spotted by said activists, she ran inside. She tried to say they were seeing things.

New york has become the hub of the fur industry, its environmental laws are going down the crapper. What's worse, is hillary is very flip floppy and has resulted in a lot of blind-eyeing to important issues. I am very glad that pataki is gone, as he was just as bad; but coming from someone who lives in new york (the state, not city) I hate to say it but that this is not the way I want my country run.

A nomination for hillary is a lack of voting from a lot of people. It would be republican vs republican at that point...we all lose. She is NOT Bill Clinton and should not be mistaken for him, the clinton name runs as far as the 'n' in her name...and nothing more.

[futureman]

96. Vote!...

If the two parties aren't giving you anyone to vote for, vote third party. America needs alternatives to the two parties. Third parties may not win but the erosion of the two party's traditional bases show and could lead to action by reformers.

[zulchzulu]

87. All I going to say is support your candidate in the primaries...

Let's do that step first. I've made my decision and plan on getting other activists out in the streets this spring in my area. We'll see how the support is when you get out in the streets and not just on the net or anonymous polling...

So far in Madison Farmers Market (10,000+ people on Saturdays) , there are already allotted areas for Obama, Edwards, Draft Gore and a Green Party section. No one else has signed up so far.

[Morgana LaFey]

89. Are you really serious?

I couldn't even READ your post. It's nonsense. It's so far out from the election, and even from the primaries, that it's all just -- nonsense. The only people seriously interested are the pundits because that's the only thing they like to talk about (the horse race, not any issues) and perhaps some misguided political junkies who don't understand what NONSENSE this all is at this point.

And btw, I loathe Hillary, but I sure as hell don't want Obama jammed down my thoat for ANY reason, and especially not for NONSENSE reasons this far out.

Sheesh!

[election_2004]

90. The Clintons have become a faux panacea, with Hillary as the ultimate kool-aid candidate

Hillary is not a magic bullet, in terms of presidential administrations. Unfortunately, many Democrats have been blinded by the free kool-aid the MSM is passing out on her behalf, along with the bells n' whistles of her presidential campaign. She constantly touts herself as the "most qualified, and most experienced," but, of course, never bothers to explain how.

Also very troubling is many people including DUers seem convinced the Dems will pick up 8-10 senate seats and a whole gaggle of congressional seats in '08, no matter what. The most likely scenario is that most incumbents from both parties will hold their seats...and there will very possibly be a few red/purple district or Senate seat (Johnson, Landrieu) losses in '08, if Sen. Clinton is at the top of the ticket.

Just because Bush is plummeting in popularity, I see many "mainstream" Democrats getting cocky, basically saying "Any Dem nominee will probably win, so let's go with Hillary to get our first woman president and get the Clintons back in the White House to fix this mess. Two birds, one stone."

Watch out, because with that "strategy" we all might end up enduring a "stealth" Republican challenger (Tim Pawlenty, Mike Rounds, Lindsey Graham?...Sarah Palin in the V.P. slot) sweeping 2012, along with a newly-rejuvenated GOP Congress incrementally building strength throughout '08, '10, and '12.

[ButterflyBlood]

91. Great post

Let's not become like the GOP was the last couple years, convinced they would hold Congress forever.

[BenDavid]

92. Seems more on the left seem to hate

HRC then those on the right. Seems like those here on the left are filled with such hatred for a democratic candidate.WOW! Then again, I guess you haters have to have something to say, even if it is hate.

Each time we hear a talk radio Nazi say "She can't win," it means they're afraid of her. Talk radio whores are saying great things about Obama, which should make you wonder.Why would facsist bastards and bastardetts say nice things about Obama?

I have nothing bad to say about Obama. If Obama wins - whoever wins the Democratic nomination, I'm behind him/her all the way. (That's a sentence I do not see too often in this "democratic" site.)

But seriously, between Obama with two years experience, and the only team to win back-to-back presidential campaigns since FDR, (the team that beat war hero Bush and war hero Dole), ...Who do you think the super-racist GOP wants to run against?

Finally, Damn! it seems to me that so many in here wanna blame the whole damn Iraq conflict on HER and place it all on HER shoulders more so then bush.DAMN!I believe most of HER haters in here believe that Hillary overruled the Joint Chiefs and ordered those troops to Iraq. This has nothing to do with proportion of blame - most folks just hate Hillary's guts and anybody with a hardon to hate Hillary gets the front page in today's climate.

Question: Of all the people screaming at Her today, how many gave Kerry a pass for his vote in 2004? Gee, suddenly the room got reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal quiet.Let's have a show of hands - who forgave Kerry in 2004 for his Iraq vote, but now hates Hillary's f-ing guts for voting exactly the same way he did?

Explain why Kerry got a pass on the Iraq war vote - but she doesn't.A couple of weeks ago HRC was asked this question: If you knew then what you know now would you still send troops? Hillary answer NO! What did Kerry answer? I am sure you all can recall it. uh huh A clear day standing at the Grand Canyon and Kerry was asked the same question: If you knew then what you know now would you still vote for the war? Kerry answered. YES!

This fever reminds me of the GOP's impeachment fever back in 1998. Bill's impeachment was like a criminal assault and battery. NOTHING was going to stop that impeachment because they had the fever. The GOP was "caught up" with impeachment fever - that's all they could see or hear. Bill's approval rating was in the 70s - and voters clearly didn't want him to be impeached, but like the criminal who can't stop until he assaults enough, it was GOING to happen.

Hell, the GOP lost seats in November of 1998 - but that didn't matter to them. NOTHING was going to stop that impeachment because they had the fever. They lived and breathed impeachment the way some people are now living and breathing "Stop her!"

IF YOU,LIKE ANOTHER CANDIDATE BETTER THAN HRC,VOTE FOR HIM OR HER...... But when I read some of the vitriol directed towards HRC, YOU got the fever and that tells me something.

And to THOSE DEMOCRATS, "I'll vote Republican before I'll vote for Her," Democrats need to worry because your "Stop her!" fever is turning you into what the GOP was in 1998.

I, thank you.

[skipos]

94. No hate here, I just don't want her to be our nominee

Of the current Dem candidates...
she isn't the most experienced (that would probably be Richardson)
she doesn't excite the youth the most (that would probably be Obama)
she doesn't excite the progressives the most (that would probably be kucinich)
she doesn't have the best voting record, imo and
she has has a voting record that will be easy to distort (unlike Governors like Richardson)
she doesn't do the best in general election polls (Obama or Edwards)
she doesn't have the best favorable/unfavorable ratings (Obama)
and many Repubs like Falwell hope she is our nominee.

What she does have is high name recognition, and the power to raise big $$$.

Those aren't reasons for me to support her.

[election_2004]

99. Good point about her voting record

All the GOP will need to do is run around the South and the red & purple states repeating the mantra, "Hillary Clinton voted in favor of partial-birth abortion...this is what the Democrats represent."

Say goodbye to millions of potential votes, via wedge issues.

[sampsonblk]

95. That's why there are CAMPAIGNS

nt

[caledesi]

97. If Hillary is the nominee...guess who said he will step in?

Ralph Nader! He will waltz in to ruin the election again! That is one reason I don't want Hillary as the nominee.

[Learn2Swim]

100. I agree that we need Obama

[Colobo]

101. Of course we need him!

Viva O-ba-ma!