Say what you want about Hillary as a candidate, or her ability to win the general election. Her advisors have made much better strategic decisions than those of Obama and Edwards.

What I find interesting is the wide margin of difference between polls right now. I heard one quoted on Iowa Dems that puts Edwards in first place, for example.

I gotta say, I'm not real happy to see Hillary doing so well (though God knows I like Obama even less).

The thing about Hillary that's hard for me to take is that she seems to engender so much dislike in the broader electorate, while offering so little progressive payoff if elected. The right wing machine treats her as if she's wearing the horns of a liberal, and has convinced a good portion of the larger public of that purported fact. Yet she is instead someone who has staked out only the blandest possible position near the middle.

I mean, if you're going to be so roundly hated, shouldn't you be fighting for something a little beyond the tepid and ordinary?

Hillary's candidacy leaves me completely dis-thrilled. Her ratio of baggage to benefit is way, way too high.

While I like Edwards a fair amount, if Gore were to come on the scene, I'd go for him like a shot.

Among other things, the man has been vetted every which way possible, and some ways that are not. There would be a great karmic justice in having him take over the reins of power after the disgraceful outcome of the 2000 election. The forces in the cosmos will be properly set in order only when that basic mistake is corrected, and the man who should have been President rectifies the egregious misdoings of the man who usurped the role.

To date, I've been puzzled that Gore has not chosen to enter the race. I've gotta say, though, pretty soon I may be pissed.

Some people were meant to be President; the stars have aligned to designate them uniquely. Gore really shouldn't thumb his nose at the gods here.

Hillary is the least trusted among Dem candidates.

Gore really shouldn't thumb his nose at the gods here.

What scares me about Hillary has nothing to do with her or her husband. It is the number of Americans who would NEVER, EVER vote for her, no matter what she promises, what her positions are on issues, whatever...

Why are we trying to advance a candidate who has the LEAST chance of winning against a GOPer?

If it comes down to JuliAnnie as the GOP candidate, the far right wing will just stay home on eleciton day...UNLESS they come out to cast their vote AGAINST Hillary.

I'm still holding out hope for Al Gore's entry into the race. If November comes and no Al, I'll be seriously disappointed.

GORE/OBAMA '08

PEACE

I think that Edwards is sitting quite comfortable in third place.

He is not my first choice, but I liked him in 04, and I like him now.

J Edwards is NOT going away anytime soon, and I will be watching him closely tonight.

Let's see, she's steadily leading her Democratic colleagues in all the polls and beating Rudy and Mitt as well...and this is the candidate that you think has the "least chance of winning?"

Gotta stop listening to FOXonians and their counterparts in the Mainstream media.

Forgot to say...if this is how well Clinton does when "nobody" likes her, imagine what'll happen when she finally overcomes that "hurdle."

Iowa is different because it's "caucuses", not a popular primary, which differ about tenfold in voter participation (2% of voters on average versus 20%+). The whole point of the caucus system is that local "organizers", the most dedicated activists, the various campaign operatives, and local Party officials try to steer who they want to have turn out in caucuses to achieve the result they want. They can't completely buck national trends, popular polling numbers, and perceptions of the candidates- but they can achieve a substantial skew.

In Iowa the Democratic Party is to a large extent the party of organized labor, i.e. farmers and unions and teachers and such, and the Iowa electorate is very white in comparison to the rest of the country. Edwards is their guy this time around (it was Gephardt in 2003, but that didn't work out), their core voter demographic is probably middle aged and majority male. Clinton and Obama voters tend to be younger, older, and more female- people who don't go to caucuses as much, whose connection to the Party is more casual.

Gore's not running! Writing a book that slams the media makes it a certainty.
But the polling orgs will continue including him - resulting in a noncandidate in the "top 3."

Despite what various outliers (52% of Americans definitely won't vote for her? Oh, scary!

This outlier is pleased to be part of a minority of 52%.

Not often we outliers get above 2-3%.

We ain't voting for no Republican, Lite or Heavy.

Is it your opinion Hillary has the voter suppression magic of the Heavies? I don't recall her being elected ever though no doubt she was a miracle worker with cattle futures.

Best, Terry

All that will change when it's down to her and one Republican left standing.

Both sides have about 47% of the electorate their way as a baseline, with Democrats optimistic and Republicans unenthusiastic. The remaining 5-6% have rejected all significant Bush/Republican policies, including the 'handling terrorism' bit. It shouldn't be hard to get 80%+ of their votes for the Democratic candidate.

I think the internal troublemaking within the Party, by an organized and fanatical small Right wing that is 'pro-Israel' and a grossly selfrighteous/illiberal disorganized Left wing aligned with Dean in 2004 and Obama now, is a substantially greater problem and source of sabotage of the Democratic nominee.

Democrats do run the elections process in almost all of the Democratic leaning swing states in '08 now- in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. (New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington are imo no longer swing states.) That should prevent the vote suppressions the Republicans achieved previously. The loss of Republican state governments and Secretaries of State in these states this past November is the reason Karl Rove set to fully enlisting the federal government- i.e. DoJ- to try to do the dirty work of Democratic voter suppression there.

Florida voting may be gummed up by the Republicans in state and local (and perhaps federal) government again, but by trend and a little additional margin from some newly enfranchised voters there should be a 51% or 52% Democratic win there- a margin in the area of 100,000 votes. Even if the electoral votes don't go Democratic- and I suspect the Democratic nominee won't need them- there should be a serious Democratic gain in seats in the state legislature, state and local government generally, and maybe US House there.

By trend Virginia, Missouri, and Arizona should come very close to tipping Democratic. National Democrats should get to 48% or 49% in them, and maybe some new citizens or reenfranchised ones or committed Democrats moving in will raise the number. Numbers may go higher for some state Democrats, it'll be interesting to watch. There should also be a number of smaller Red States that will see national Democrats moving into the mid/high forties in them, which should result in a serious political climate change. I.e. local diminishing of the status quo conservativism, much along the lines of what is going on in Florida now.

Well, then you may be pleased to be part of the group that gives this nation another Republican presidency. I'm unimpressed with people who use threats - such as you are doing here - to prevent others from voting for whom they want. In effect you are saying, vote my way or I'm going to do my part to keep Republicans in the White House. Oh yes, I know - even though Hillary is resolutely pro-choice, favors the Employee Free Choice Act and spearheaded the action to take down the Federal Marriage Amendment - she's no different from Republicans, right? There are members of the left as saturated in conventional wisdom as any Broderite.

The fact of the matter is that Hillary has run and won a senate seat from a better funded, and relatively moderate GOP candidate and in her re-election won cross over votes.

It's odd - it's like a personal thing here. You hold the well-being of our nation apparently in lower regard than you do your personal whims. I understand you intend to vote for someone else in the primary. I, myself, will probably vote for Edwards. But I am not so foolish as to say to people that I will not vote Democratic if such and such candidate gets the nomination. Any Democrat running would be a clear improvement over whomever the Pubs will nominate. And my personal ego satisfaction is held in lower priority than the health of the sole super-power.

It's my opinion that Hillary is one helluva tough campaigner and Bill knows as much about winning campaigns as probably anyone in the history of the world. I don't think the temper tantrum you propose you'll have will ultimately impact the campaign and that's a good thing.

I'm not a Hillary supporter in the primaries but I have to say that this little gem from Fox, cited above is incredible:

' ...She has a problem connecting with the voters ...'

How in the hell does Cameron think she won two landslide victories in New York?

Exactly!

Man...FOX really has us fooled! When all is said and done, they really, really love Hillary Rodham Clinton!

That's too facile an explanation.

Her husband is her chief strategist, and he deserves credit for helping to advance the viability of her candidacy despite criticism from all sides of the political spectrum.

As for funding the war, in the most recent vote, both Hillary and Obama voted against funding in the absence of a timetable.

There you will find an article headlined "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton." The story notes:

"Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports. The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch."

The brazenness of this move is almost too much to stomach, even in a story about Hillary Clinton. Here you have a leading Democratic U.S. Senator engaging in a "mating ritual" with the head of the news network that has overtly worked to systematically destroy both the Democratic Party and her own husband's administration.

Here you have a top member of the American government shaking down cash from a guy whose record is chock full of union-busting, tax-evading, local media crushing, war mongering and all sorts of other disgusting behavior - behavior permitted by Congress without question, thanks to America's system of legalized bribery, as epitomized in the Clinton-Murdoch fundraiser.

Here you have, in short, proof that the hostile takeover of our government runs far deeper than we ever imagined, in a far more bipartisan way than we wanted to admit. Thank you, Sen. Clinton - in bragging about the fundraiser you are holding with the right-wing billionaire who has worked to destroy your party and your husband, at least you are (albeit inadvertently) acknowledging how far-reaching the hostile takeover of our government really is.

Sorry, but your argument simply isn't supported by the 2004 history. IF Iowa was so dominated by party organizers AND Gephardt was their first choice, Gephardt would have done much better than he did in the (soi disant organizer-dominated) caucuses. But he didn't. At all. There were 6 Gephardt caucusers out of at least 300 (BTW not particularly old or male) caucus-goers at my caucus -- about the same support as for Wes Clark, who'd already ceded the state, and only slightly more than the ironic Sharpton contingent -- and they disappeared after the first round.

Boy, what can you say about paranoia?

Those poll numbers are national numbers (and I am surprised Hillary is in the lead quite frankly) - in the Iowa polls - Edwards is on top.

I'm unimpressed with people who use threats - such as you are doing here - to prevent others from voting for whom they want.

It is no doubt a fearsome threat that I would refuse to vote for Hillary because she is a Republican Lite and thus deprive voters of a chance to choose between two Republicans in November.

Hillary is resolutely pro-choice

So is the leading Republican Heavy, who was elected mayor with New York's Liberal Party endorsement.

Hillary is the candidate who also promises more war and corruption, more comfort for the upper classes and harder times for the hard luck folk - in short a Republican Lite.

I, myself, will probably vote for Edwards.

Most curious but I congratulate you for threatening to vote for an honest-to-goodness populist. Most folks here don't seem so inclined.

Hey, we loved Gravel around here. Kinda fires up the old embers to hear from such a fellow. Guess you wouldn't know about putting principle over power that got us in the fix we are in now. Hillary may learn you a thing or two.

Hope not.

Best, Terry

those books about the clintons. now that's real journalism.

You think so huh? :-)

Do they focus on the miraculous cattle futures trades with a crooked broker or reconstructive surgery?

Somehow I would bet the latter.

Is Whitewater, Murdoch, care and feeding of the upper classes, hedge fund tribute detailed or are they more interested in scandal and gossip?

Just wondering. I don't read the good stuff. Just the bad stuff like that TPMuckraker writes. We all have our idiosyncracies.

Best, Terry

"Murdoch plays and woos the big politico boys and gals:..."

Am I supposed to be surprised by this?

You want absolute purity? Vote for Nader...oh wait! Even he makes millions from the stock market!

Why that dirty bird! I am shocked, shocked I tell you. How can any vestal virgin make money in the stock market? What is this world coming to?

There were some horrid rumors once that Nader had [gasp] a girlfriend. Is no one chaste anymore?

Best, Terry

Good point - Hillary's landslide victories in NY. During the general last year, Hillary sent out an email soliciting donations because the Repub was nipping at her heels, etc. What she failed to say was the polling had her wayyy ahead. However, as we know - after the election, $10M raised during her senate campaign was then transferred to her prez campaign.
I don't trust her.