Zogby poll of Iowa: Edward leads Dems, Giuliani leads GOP

[WI_DEM]

Dems:
Edwards 27%
Obama 17%
Vilsack: 16%
Clinton: 16%
Biden: 3%
Kerry 3%
Kucinich 1%
Richardson 1%
Not Sure: 13%

GOP:
Giuliani: 19%
McCain: 17%
Gingrich: 13%
Rice: 9%
Romney: 5%
Tancredo: 2%
Hagel: 2%
Brownback: 1%
Not Sure: 22%

I'm rooting for Newt to upset in Iowa.

www.zogby.com

[NewInNewJ.]

1. You would think that Edwards was not even

running, or could make a difference in the race, if you listen to the media. I like him and could eaisly support him.

[SteveM]

4. His gun control stand is a liability, but Obama's is an anchor.

Obama's stand on guns is to prohibit the sale and transfer of ALL semi-automatic firearms. I have posted this info in other threads, but haven't seen a discussion ensue. Best talk about it now. The NRA will.

[noahmijo]

51. whoa ALL semi-auto weapons or Assault Weapons not modified to function in full auto?

Yes there is a BIG difference. I know I'm not the only DU'er here who owns a 45 auto or a Glock handgun that is a semi-auto.

[benEzra]

89. Full autos are already restricted...

possession of one is a 10-year Federal felony, without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4), under the National Firearms Act. Guns easily converted to full auto are restricted under the same provisions and penalties.

I know Mr. Obama has supported at least banning all self-loading rifles with protruding handgrips, a position I hope he rethinks; the last thing the party needs is for somebody to revive the "Dems'll take yer guns" meme. He's been the recipient of some major disinformation on the issue, I think.

I have seen a statement that seems to show him calling for a ban on all semiautomatics in '04, but I don't know if it was taken out of context or not.


-------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[ProudDad]

53. Who gives a shit

about those yahoos in the NRA:

"As more figures come in, the extent of the NRA’s campaign losses becomes even clearer. They spent over 2.1 million dollars in independent expenditures in 51 federal campaigns during the 2006 election cycle according to data reported so far to the Federal Election Commission.

......

So what kind of “bang” did the NRA get for these bucks?:

* 83 percent of the money went to losing campaigns.
* 88 percent of the money spent on U.S. Senate campaigns went to losers"

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/2006/11/22/no-bang-from-nra-bucks/




WHO CARES about the fucking NRA??? Screw 'em...

[Apollo11]

56. Strongly agree

I hope I'm not the only DU member who doesn't own a gun.

I believe only law enforcement should have access to guns.

Except maybe hunting rifles for hunters with a licence.

So America would be more like a "normal" country.

[Speed8098]

59. Who's to say what's "Normal"?

I believe only law enforcement should have access to guns

Not good.


So America would be more like a "normal" country.

Please describe normal

[mdmc]

69. PERHAPS having a "normal" death rate for gun related deaths

we are much higher then anyone else, iraq excluded..

[Marnieworld]

70. not my statement but

normal could be defined as not as many deaths by guns. I am not a gun owner but I can see why someone would want one for protection personally but youhave to admit, compared to most places, in fact all places, our death rate from firearms is ridiculously out of proportion.

[derby378]

84. You should re-read the Second Amendment

It neither breaks your back nor picks your pocket if I own an AK-47. Seriously. It's not even the original full-auto version I'm talking about, here, just a semi-auto version. You want to regulate ownership of full-auto? That's fine with me. Just leave the semi-autos alone. Please.

[ProudDad]

96. Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

How do you feel about how easy it is for people to get a gun dealer's license?

How do you feel about a rigorous background check for gun purchasers?

How about private ownership of Howitzers?


I live in a very large city full of fucking guns. Many of these guns were stolen from "good citizens" and are then used to shoot up the streets of my city. I'm certain that an initiative to ban handguns from the city would pass but the fuckin' feds (crying 2nd Amendment protection) wouldn't allow us to cleen up out town.

[Madspirit]

91. I fought the law...

You must trust law enforcement much much more than I do. When guns are outlawed only the police and the military and the criminals will have them. BAD.
On the other hand, any kid that gets killed because they have morons for parents who just leave guns lying around...the parents should spend a long time in prison.
I'm not willing to takes guns out of the hands of the people. I absofuckinglutely do not trust our police or our government enough to reliquish that right.
Madspirit

[benEzra]

92. Lot's of DU'ers DO own guns, lawfully and responsibly...

I hope I'm not the only DU member who doesn't own a gun.

I believe only law enforcement should have access to guns.

Except maybe hunting rifles for hunters with a licence.

So America would be more like a "normal" country.

Lot's of DU'ers DO own guns, lawfully and responsibly--and we would like to keep them, thanks.

FWIW, half of gun owners are NOT repubs, and 80% of gun owners are nonhunters, which is why the crusade to ban nonhunting guns is the mother of all wedge issues. My wife and I both own guns, including a couple of modern-looking small-caliber carbines, and we'd like to keep them, thanks.

The death of the the "Dems'll take yer guns" meme was a major reason behind the retake of the Senate this past November (Webb and Tester wouldn't have won if they weren't strongly pro-choice on gun ownership). Prosecute those who misuse guns, but leave the law-abiding majority alone, please.


-------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[ProudDad]

97. A large percentage of gun owners

are compensating for small dicks (IMHO)...

[benEzra]

104. Same could be said of those who bash gun owners...which would be just as baseless and bigoted...

A large percentage of gun owners are compensating for small dicks (IMHO)...

Same could be said of those who bash gun owners...which would be just as baseless and bigoted. Would you like to back up that statement with, say, a cite from Freud (he actually said pretty much the opposite, you know), or clinical research? Or have you been conducting personal research on the subject with a questionnaire and a ruler?

IIRC a third of gun owners are women...your hypothesis could be construed as applying there, but I personally doubt that's the reason some women choose to own them...

Do you actually think that that kind of let's-all-hate-gun-owners prejudice either (A) helps further a Democratic majority or (B) is in any way progressive?

You might find this DU poll, and the associated thread, enlightening: Do You Own a Gun? (DU poll)

[Irreverend IX]

64. Why did Dems win in 2006?

In part because there was little to no talk about gun control, and many of the upset winners, like Tester and Webb, are pro-RKBA. Obama (at least according to http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm) wants to ban the sale and transfer of all semiautomatic firearms, which millions and millions of Americans own. This is not going to stop gun crime; black market arms already exist and will become much more prevalent with a ban, and most criminals use revolvers anyway. What it will do is galvanize huge numbers of law-abiding gun owners to oppose the Democratic party. The 1994 Republican revolution and Bush presidency would never have happened without the "assault weapon" ban, but it seems some people still haven't learned to leave the gun issue alone. Real progressive issues like workers' rights, health care access and economic justice have much more impact on people's quality of life than gun control does.

[RaleighNCDUer]

83. There is another aspect to what you say, as well --

with economic justice and opportunity, crime goes down. When crime goes down, gun sales go down.

If you want to reduce gun deaths, promote equality, because it is crime and inequality that drives up both gun use and gun sales.

The so-called assault weapons ban was an attempt by people who didn't know what they were doing to fix a problem they don't understand - all the benefits of that legislation came from a very small proviso - the restrictions on large capacity magazines. Full auto is already illegal unless the purchaser jumps thru some extraordinary hoops, so most "assault weapons" are not, really. What makes them assault weapons is just window dressing, plus large capacity mags. The only difference is they 'look' more military, which resonates with the uber-macho tastes of gun nuts.

And I say "gun nuts" very deliberately, because there are a great many people who own and use assault-style weapons regularly who are NOT gun nuts and are very responsible gun owners, and there are also those who love them because they look bad-ass and they have their Rambo fantasies to live up to - THOSE are the gun nuts. There are, however, even here, people who see no difference between the guy who target shoots with his AR15, and the guy who takes his Chinese AK knockoff to shoot up a McDonalds.

[ProudDad]

98. You're wrong

When the Assault weapons ban went into effect, yahoos were walking through school yards and law offices killing people.

Ignorance of history condemns one to repeat it.

Now it's hand guns. I'd like to see a general hand gun ban except for target pistols (registered and controlled).

You really think that 2 gun per every 3 persons is reasonable???

[derby378]

85. Bada-bing, bada-boom!

Well said. Thank you. :hi:

[benEzra]

90. You don't have to give a shit about the NRA...

but you certainly need to give a shit about gun owners, since there are ~80 MILLION of them, and half of all gun owners are NOT repubs. And FWIW, 80% are nonhunters.

My wife and I own guns, including a couple of modern-looking small-caliber carbines. We'd like to keep them, thanks...

[ProudDad]

99. What the fuck for????

I know there's a fascination with the things.

I've owned guns in the past and have recovered from that aberration.

You could too... :hi:

[benEzra]

105. Oh, because **80 MILLION** of us choose differently than you...

and half of gun owners registered to vote are NOT repubs...

Merely raising the price on over-10-round handgun magazines, and requiring small cosmetic changes to civilian rifle styling (e.g., either muzzle threads or protruding handgrips legal, but not both on the same rifle if manufactured after Sept. '04), arguably cost Dems the House AND Senate in the mid-90s (President Clinton estimated the Feinstein ban cost at least 20 House seats), and was a major factor behind Gore's loss of the White House in '00 and the Kerry/Edwards loss in '04. And dropping the ban-more-guns agenda after '04 was IMHO a major factor behind the retaking of the Senate, and arguably the House as well, in '06, in addition to a number of governorships (PA and OH come to mind).

But perhaps bashing responsible Dems and indies who disagree with you, and harassing them with silly regulations, is more important to you than, say, health care reform, or resolving the Iraq quagmire.

You and I aren't going to agree on whether private gun ownership is a good thing. I don't care, as long as you don't try to take away my right to choose. Let's work together on the issues we do agree on, no?

[Robert P]

74. That's funny.

Because among the LARGE number of "present" votes he cast, "in 2001 he voted 'present' on a bill to prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearm".

Yet another sign that he is a flip-flopper with no internal fortitude.

[me b zola]

102. Maybe you could show up with purple band-aides to show your disapproval

[benny05]

78. If you listen only to the MSM Nationally

Edwards has been many places, including Iowa, in which the local media generally pick up the story. The locals are reading and watching their own media.

[Libby2]

2. Go Johnny Go!

[Demit]

3. Au contraire! On the GOP side, it's Not Sure who's leading the pack.

[Lex]

12. You're exactly right.

They got nothing so far.

[ProudDad]

52. I saw this too

They're not sure of anything anymore...

[BuyingThyme]

5. It's amazing how anybody can see Rice as anything other than

a murderous criminal.

[Divine Discontent]

54. wow...

someone that thinks like I do about Kindasleezy (for all she's been a part of which is shameful if people really understood)




www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[bluewave]

6. Romney 5%, Hillary tied for 3rd with *gasp* Vilsack

:rofl:

[Clark2008]

7. Groan.

I feel really bad for America that the No. 1 choices are a pair of slick politicians.

[Lex]

10. Clark2008: When's Clark announcing?

Why isn't his name there?


______________________________

[bullwinkle428]

15. I hope he doesn't make the same mistake he made in 2004, and get

into the race too late. He could be a great candidate, once he's in the position to raise his visibility...

[Lex]

19. I agree. I'd love to see Wes Clark in the race.

He's not my top choice, but I don't go around tearing him down in other threads. He'd be a welcome addition to the Dem race.

:hi:

_____________________

[bullwinkle428]

24. I bought his "Winning Modern Wars" recently at a discount bookstore,

but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Yet here I am on his case about procrastinating! :hi:

[Bucky]

94. He's got some telling comments in there about Bush/Rummy's cut rate approach to Iraq

From the get go Bush was taking unnecessary risks with American soldiers' lives. By and large Bush's gamble paid off--even under staffed the American military performed excellently against Iraq's depleted, exhausted, and undertrained army. Clark's pride in the army really shines through there, as does his understanding just how completely misled and betrayed the troops are.

I don't recommend "Winning Modern War" as highly as the first book, "Waging Modern War." But it's still a quick and gripping read.

[bullwinkle428]

110. Thanks for the capsule review - he appears to be a very good writer,

from the snippets I read while checking it out in the bookstore.

[Clark2008]

29. I don't know.

I wish I did, but I don't.

It's just hard for me to fathom that the folks in Iowa really like either Edwards OR Guiliani.

Odd.

[Blue Gardener]

60. Why so hard to fathom?

Some of us here in Iowa do like Edwards. He is most likely my choice in the caucuses. Maybe if Clark would show up once in awhile people could get to know him better.
As for Guiliani, I've never figured out his appeal.

[Stuckinthebush]

71. I wonder if it is a Clinton loyalty thing

Clark and the Clinton's are close, no?

If so, I wonder if he is staying out because of Clinton.

[Faryn Balyncd]

75. Clearly Zogby elinated both GORE and CLARK from their question...

Nowhere on the Zogby site does the wording of what they asked on the telephone appear.

Yet it is clear that Zofby asked a qyestion that included specific names --- and Zogby did not include Gore or Clark.

Perhaps they justify this by the reasoning that they are not announced candidates. Yet they included numerous candidates in the poll that are not announced candidates.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. EXACTLY. Hillary is no more "Announced" Than Al Gore.

The Corporate Media wants certain people to be "front runners".

Look at DU, Al Gore is clearly the front runner here.

[Nedsdag]

77. Oh, come now!

I've seen Clark on TV. He's not exactly a stuttering, doddering fool.

He's pretty smooth himself and I like Clark.

[Bucky]

95. Hate to break it to ya, but they're all slick. I like some of the Dems better than others, but....

...every single one of them is an improvement over their eventual opponents. My last choice of the lot of them, Mrs Clinton, would still represent change in the right direction. Democrats can be "finger to the wind" sometimes, but don't tell me that isn't an improvement over a president who refuses to listen to a tornado of advice and keeps his finger squarely up his ass.

[HamdenRice]

8. Please! Please! GOP run Giuliani

Once the rest of the country gets to know this guy during the campaign as well as New Yorkers do, he'll have negatives on about the scale of Osama bin Laden!

As Jimmy Breslin once said, Giuliani is a little man in search of a balcony.

[Clark2008]

9. He'll kick Edwards' ass.

??

[Lex]

11. Guiliani will welcome your vote I'm sure. nt

[HamdenRice]

14. Where's your sarcasm smilie?

You can't be serious. Once the country learns 1/10th about Giuliani, my pet golden retriever would be able to beat him in an election.

Do you know about this guy?

[Lex]

16. An Edwards hater.

A bitter Clarkie.

[HamdenRice]

25. strange way to show Clark support nt

[Clark2008]

31. Because it's not.

I really, really, really dislike Edwards all by himself and will not vote for him (or the Republican) should he get the nomination. It has nothing to do with Clark.

[HamdenRice]

33. Even if you dislike Edwards ...

Fair enough if you dislike Edwards, but I think your analysis is wrong. Anybody, but anybody, could beat Giuliani, once people get to know him, including Hillary, Edwards and my dog.

[Clark2008]

34. I don't think Edwards can flip any red state.

And, unfortunately, most people think Guiliani is a hero. Do you really think the press will "go after" Guiliani's "family values?"

I don't trust them to do it.

[WI_DEM]

35. I disagree. I don't think Giuliani would do well in the south

despite 9/11, he's still a NY Republican liberal who supports gay rights and is pro-choice. The Religious Right would not be motivated to turn out for him. Meanwhile I do think a fellow southerner like Edwards--especially against Giuliani--could pick off a few southern states. Clark could too.

[demo dutch]

87. Exactly!!!!

[mnhtnbb]

37. I think Edwards CAN flip red states, including his own. NC

now has paper trails (which we didn't in 04 and there were shenanigans).
Elizabeth is LOVED in NC and John will be smart enough to play up her military family history.

I think he can also flip others if the Repubs put a Yankee at the top of their ticket.

[Lex]

40. Edwards beat a long time Repuke Senator funded by Jesse Helms'

political pac in order to gain his Senate seat here in NC to begin with.

[bluescribbler]

76. Ain't no Yankees on the GOPig ticket

Mittens is no Yankee. He's a Utah Mormon who happens to own a house in Belmont. Rudy is a New Yorker. Just because Steinbrenner calls his team the Yankees doesn't mean there are any true Yankees in New York. Now if Susan Collins or Lincoln Chaffee were to run....

[me b zola]

103. Guiliani is a fucking corporate mobster

Bring him on! Guiliani will embarass the puke party and lose by a landslide--especially if you pit him against a populist.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Guiliani will NEVER be the GOP nominee.

He's pro-choice.

[Pyrzqxgl]

42. Why do you hate Edwards? He's a good Union-Progressive

I can't at this early stage of the game say that it's OK to hate anyone. It'll be a hell of a lot easier to form opinions when these people start to debate, talk issues, & the Democratic Congress starts to show some positive results. Right now it's Ok to hate Republicans but not fellow Democrats. Thats just biting your own ass.

[Clark2008]

30. Edwards hater is correct, but it has NOTHING to do with

my support of Clark. I disliked Edwards for all the shit he did after 9/11 - a time when Clark wasn't even on the political map.

Sorry to ruin your stereotype. :hi:

[Lex]

38. Whatever it is, it reflects poorly on Clark,

unfortunately for him, due to your screenname.

Edited to add: Clearly you attack Edwards on EVERY front, not just the 9/11 stuff, as evidenced in this very thread, so that's just BS to say that.

:hi:

[Catchawave]

44. Poor representative for Clark too :(

Here's a recent statement by General Clark about John Edwards:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I like John Edwards. I think he has to be taken in as a very serious contender for the Presidency in 2008. He's a man who is clearly shown his motivation and his determination and, and one of the things that I think all Americans want and I think people all over the world want is they want the American President to be fully committed, his whole life, being and essence to the job and the public responsibilities that come with the office of the Presidency.

Snipped from:

http://securingamerica.com/printready/transcript_061228.htm

Edwards haters should be ashamed, they are seriously hurting both John and Wesley.

[Apollo11]

58. Nice quote from Clark!

As you all know I am hoping that Al Gore will be the Democratic nominee in 2008.

But whoever is the candidate we should all be ready to get behind that person!

And don't forget that when we take back the Whitehouse then there will be lots of cabinet posts to be filled. I think the candidates and likely candidates understand this. Going negative and slamming each other would be a huge mistake because they will all have to work together through the Presidential election and then for the coming 4 - 8 - 12 - 16 - 20 years ....

So slamming each other is not only pointless, but also dangerous.

Democrats fighting each other can only be good news for the GOP.

[Lex]

86. I agree Apollo11.

Good points, especially "Democrats fighting each other can only be good news for the GOP."


_____________________

[Clark2008]

32. Yep - and I know about Slick Eddy, too.

Don't like either one, to be frank.

[bluewave]

17. Wait until they hear about his marriages

Married his 2nd cousin. Had his girlfriend in Gracie Mansion while his family (and his wife) was living there. Etc. This man is human trash.

[Lex]

21. He has real Repuke Family Values

doesn't he?

_______________

[bluewave]

23. Heard that his current wife is so nutty

she's not allowed anywhere near the campaign.

[HamdenRice]

22. He's also going to lose the ferret vote

Giuliani was widely known and mocked for his bizarre, Jim Jones-like tirades, especially on his own radio show while mayor.

Once he went on a completely psychotic rant about ferret owners. All they have to do is play that tape, and he's toast.

[bluewave]

26. LMAO. Well, he and McCain can argue who's most crazy. Remember McCain's Luke Skywalker

tirade? LMAO

[HamdenRice]

27. I'm completely unfamiliar with the McCain Skywalker tirade

what was it about?

[bluewave]

36. His former supporters claim

During a non-media rally held prior to the 2000 elections when he was seeking the nomination, he started comparing himself to Luke Skywalker. He freaked out, said he had to defeat the Empire, which represented his enemies. IIRC, something like Darth Vader was the media.

I guess his supporters were shocked that he was so insane behind closed doors. They say he is a different man in front of the camera. But it occasionally leaks out, like when he told that NBC reporter to "get out" during an event.

[Inspired]

63. Groan, indeed.

He won't be kicking any ass in Iowa.

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. Wasn't Guiliani elected TWICE by an overwealmingly Democratic city?

I wouldn't underestimate him if I were you.

[bigdarryl]

13. in the end Vilsack will win Iowa

[WI_DEM]

18. if he does it would be a hollow victory

and the real winner would be who came in second or even third--especially if Vilsack can't win by a significant margin. I'm not all together sure that Vilsack will even win Iowa.

[bullwinkle428]

20. I live in Iowa, and don't see that happening.

[gasperc]

80. yep, Vilsak will have to show he can win nationally

otherwise, it looks like he'll only hold onto a core set of supporters in Iowa. And even they may abandon him.

[mnhtnbb]

39. Vilsack will throw his support to Edwards.

[WI_DEM]

41. interesting, may be hoping to be on the VP ticket?

[Critters2]

100. If that's what he's hoping for, he shouldn't have signed the English Only Bill

What the hell was he thinking?!

[Blue Gardener]

61. Not so sure of that

Check the Iowa board if you want some idea of what Iowa DU'er's think of Vilsack. Vilsack is okay for governor, but I don't want him as president.

[brettdale]

28. Im picking McCain versus Obama

in 2008.

[fooj]

48. McCain can't even win in his straw polls in Arizona...

LOSER deserves everything that he gets.

[Lex]

43. Kicked and Recommended.

:thumbsup:

___________

[Poiuyt]

45. Why do they have Rice in there but not Gore?

I think Gore is closer to running than Rice is.

[benny05]

46. And Edwards is going to be back in Hawkeye Land Sat

Presidential Candidate John Edwards to visit Iowa City this Saturday

What: A town hall meeting with Presidential Candidate and Former Senator John Edwards.

Why: To discuss the troop surge in Iraq.
When: This Saturday, January 20th at 2:00 PM

Where: The Iowa Memorial Union, located at the corner of Madison and Jefferson Streets on the University of Iowa Campus.

This event is free and open to the public. Questions? Contact Kevin Sherlock at 847.627.0006 or kevindsherlockATgmail.com

From Edwards' campaign today, David Bonior said:

This weekend, President Bush claimed on national TV that Congress does not have the power to stop his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq.1

That's bull. I served in Congress for 26 years, and I can assure you that Congress does have the power to stop this escalation -- and it has used that power many times before, including in Vietnam, Lebanon, Nicaragua and Colombia.

The test for today's Congress is simple: will they step up to the plate and use their power to stop the president from escalating the war? I can tell you one thing -- they're only going to do that if they hear from you.

That's why we're going to run a full-page ad in Roll Call -- the newspaper all of Congress reads -- with John Edwards' petition against the escalation, listing the tens of thousands of us who have signed it. The petition demands that this Congress use its power of the purse to stop this president from escalating the war in Iraq -- and that's what we're going to put in the ad.

Iowans will be drawn to this meeting.

And no one can mistake the organization of the ground boots for JRE in Iowa.

[philgobluemi]

47. Compare to Earlier Iowa Polls

December 18-20, 2006
Research 2000 (KCCI-TV Des Moines)

John Edwards 22%
Barack Obama 22%
Tom Vilsack 12%
Hillary Clinton 10%
Al Gore 7%
John Kerry 5%
Wes Clark 4%

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2006/12/new_2008_iowa_poll.html

October 12-19, 2006
Harstad Strategic Research (Environmental Defense)

Results (likely caucus-goers)
Edwards 36%
Clinton 16%
Obama 13%
Vilsack 9%
Kerry 6%
Biden 5%
Clark 3%

http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=3630

which also included a survey of the Democratic county chairs and vice chairs
Edwards 40%
Vilsack 15%
Obama 11%
Clinton 8%

[CarbonDate]

49. A couple of notables here:

1. Iowa is the state that effectively propelled Kerry to the nomination in 2004, and he's at 3%. I don't think he's going to get Iowa back at this point.

2. Vilsack is tied for third in his own state. I doubt he'll even stay in long enough to lose the caucus.

3. He's leading Clinton, a former first lady, and Obama, who's from neighboring Illinois. This really speaks to the strength of his appeal in Iowa.

4. I was a Clark backer in 2004, but I think he's going to read the writing on the wall here and stay out of the race. Even if he gets in, I honestly don't think he's going to be able to get past the fact that so many Democrats distrust career military types.

I am still undecided at this point, except for the fact that I'm not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

[Laurab]

50. I like any poll that doesn't have Hillary as the front-runner

Not because I have anything against Hillary, really - just that I believe she can't win, because she is as polarizing to the right as * is to the left. In her case, it's not earned IMO, but it's there nonetheless.

All the front-runner crap has been engineered by the repukes, because she's their dream candidate to run against. Personally, I'd rather have the dems pick our front-runner.

I don't have a favorite yet, the only thing I know for sure is that I don't want Hillary to run. She's my senator, and she's done an ok job, but I haven't seen anything from her to make me think she's presidential material - the only reason she's even well-known is because of her husband.

Of course there are others on the list that one could say haven't done anything to make them seem like presidential material, but Hillary has been in the public eye much longer.

I don't like to bash ANY democratic candidate, I just want someone who can #1 WIN, and #2 be a leader who can get our country back on track.

[Apollo11]

55. It's too soon to count out Gore and/or Clark

Edwards is doing good because he has announced and he is openly running for the job.

Obama is doing OK because he is all over the mainstream media the past few weeks.

But everything would change if Gore and/or Clark would decide to enter the race.

What we know for sure about Gore is that in May he will bring out a new book - "The Assault on Reason" - all about how America could be better governed that it has been these past 6 years. Putting forward the case for more rational and reality-based decision-making in government. So in effect he has announced his intention to move on from his current focus on the climate crisis, and start a national debate about what kind of leadership America needs in the 21st Century. The timing of Gore's new book is very interesting. It tells me that he has not ruled out running again - if it appears that enough people want him to be the next President of the US.

If you go to Zogby's website it tells you about their latest national polling, which has Hillary in the lead with 29%, with Edwards, Obama and Gore all at around 13-14%. But then Zogby seems to believe the recent story about Gore "ruling out" running in 2008. So probably that is their excuse for not including his name in their Iowa poll.

Clinton Leads Dems In Zogby’s Latest National Polling; McCain, Giuliani Lead GOP

Nationally, Clinton leads the Democratic pack by a wide margin, winning 29% and doubling the support of Obama, who attracted support from 14%. Close on Obama’s heels were Edwards and former Vice President Al Gore, who each won 13% support. The separate national polling was conducted Jan. 5–9, before Gore gave his latest indication he does not expect to run.

The survey of Democratic likely voters nationally included 339 respondents and carries a margin of error of +/– 5.4 percentage points.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1236

[Apollo11]

57. More about Gore

As a follow-up, let me share with you all links to some websites where you can learn more about what Al Gore has been doing these past 6 years, and what he is doing right now ...

Like next Monday - when he will speak to more than 12000 people in Boise, Idaho !!! :)

In Gore We Trust :)
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

[B Calm]

62. Damaging facts about scumbag Giuliani.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/12/14551/8970

[comtec]

65. GORE/EDWARDS 08!

Or Edwards/Obama if Al really won't run.

Obama is just TOO green! I'm sorry but he's too young! I was asked on another post what about Clinton? Bill was a two<?> term governor of a state! And he got a hell of a lot done IN that state! Bill had a proven record for anyone who wanted to look!

I think Obama is just too green! I think his record in congress is great so far! I want him to STAY in Congress. That is something that we Often overlook as dems. It's the same fatal flaw of the green party. Congress has 1/3rd of the REAL power of the government. Congress has the power to remove a president, to remove a Supreme - Yes, if you did not know that Congress CAN impeach AND REMOVE members of the Supreme court!

We need more senators like Obama IN CONGRESS! That is the same reason I want Hilary to stay in office as well! Think of all the good Kennedy has done over his career in congress. If he had, somehow, been elected to president, after 8 years, poof that's it. As I recall only ONE president became a member of congress AFTER his 2 terms. I think that was Jefferson, but I could be wrong on who it was.

President is pretty much the end of the political line. And we need YOUNG GOOD congress members to stay in as long as they are allowed, to fix the government. How else did the GOP managed to fuck up everything in the last 12 years!? Because they had old geezers with huge amounts of power. IIRC the old codger (who name i forget) who was 100+, never had to even try to run an election. he simply won by fiat.

I like Gore/Edwards. We know Al Gore. There is no dirt that can be brought against him. It's all been done, and it's meaningless. In a way Al Gore IS the grand father of the internet. he sponsored the bill that allowed the funding to create it.

Edwards is also someone I feel we can trust. he has a good mind and heart. He's got charisma and has not been wooden at rallies. But I digress.

[Maryland Liberal]

66. ABH

Any Democrat - OTHER THAN HILLARY - is fine with me.

[Vinca]

67. Oh, my, they left out President Hunter!

I'm counting on a Hunter/Brownback ticket.:rofl: Actually, looking at their roster, they all look beatable by any of our top candidates.

[bluescribbler]

72. To be accurate

"Not Sure" is leading the GOPigs.

[dk2]

73. Edwards all the way to the Whitehouse.

He is right on the issues that matter.

[Utah_liberal]

79. I'm for Edwards

Since I am in the lower middle class, and a Union member, Edwards is all about the issues I care most about. The Media seems to be all about Hillary and Obama. I think Edwards would do better than either of them up against a Republican Candidate.

[gasperc]

81. Hagel 2%, sad

well good for us but sad that one of the most level headed members of the GOP is stuck at 2%. But I guess he only seems level headed to us. To the GOP he's like the anti-christ, what your against bombing Iran into the stone age!!!

[confludemocrat]

82. Please note: the only one who would end bickering like this thread is Gore-n/t

[demo dutch]

88. Edwards, nice guy - not enough experience- I'm worried about the future!

[bdamomma]

93. the jerk sitting in the WH has no experience either.

I'll give Edwards the :thumbsup: but I would rather wait for a debate with all eligible candidates.

[Imagevision]

101. Prediction: Giuliani will be the first to bite the dust...

[mistertrickster]

106. Speculation this far out is entirely a waste of time. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

107. So how did Zogby decide which names to include and which names not to?

I'm wondering why they're allergic to including Al Gore's name in these polls.