Skip to main content

View Diary: '08 Watch: New Poll Says Edwards Beating Hillary in Iowa (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Deflates the Hillary bubble (8+ / 0-)

    All the commentary has been that Hillary is not that beloved, but so far ahead in the polls and with $ that she can't be stopped.

    This poll deflates her bubble and gives Edwards and others a real shot.

    •  Hm, not dismissing the importance of the diary: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jawis, jpfdeuce

      Clinton's 26% will do damage to her current national aura of inevitability.

      . . .  but at I the only one that doesn't see an "aura of invincibility" around Hillary Clinton?- the only one who isn't surprised that she has no lead in the polls?

      Outside of her immediate staff and Bill, and Chelsea, who DOES think that Hillary would be such a great candidate?

      •  The 'aura' is made by the media... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MO Blue, middleagedhousewife

        ... and can just as easily be unmade by the media. They need to sell papers, so they need new stories.

        This is a new story, and fodder for a thousand articles and op-eds.

        Watch the skies - new meme in flight!

        "One does not discover new lands without consenting to leave sight of the shore for a very long time." -Andre Gide

        by pat208 on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 08:13:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hm, not dismissing the importance of the diary: (0+ / 0-)

        "Outside of her immediate staff and Bill, and Chelsea, who DOES think that Hillary would be such a great candidate?"

        She'd be a fine candidate IMO, and more importantly would be a terrific president for this nation.

        I also think people @ DKOS, including Markos  - who cannot stop badmouthing her at every turn - should start asking themselves whether she's even entitled to a fair hearing, like every other candidate.

        •  Most of those I've talk to . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          . . . think she is far too polarizing, or too hawkish on the War.  I don't doubt that she'd be better on domestic policy than what we have now, but I fear that she is just too much of a lightning rod to be elected President, and her hawkishness on FP troubles me.  And why the hell is she supported the anti-flag burning thing?  What gives? Why is that a priority?

          And I don't think Markos, the media, or anyone could deny her a fair hearing, even if they wanted to.  She will get her hearing. How people react is another thing altogether

          •  Any Democrat will be a lightning-rod. (0+ / 0-)

            What, the Republicans are going to give Mark Warner a pass?  Puh-leeze.  Any Democrat we nominate will either be a lightning-road or milquetoast.  I'd prefer the former.

            •  You are comparing... (0+ / 0-)

              Any candidate to a candidate with the name CLINTON.  CLINTON is an automatically reviled name on the right and to some moderates out there.  You really think a Mark Warner would be attacked and hated -- flat out HATED -- in the same light as Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Keep dreaming.

              I think Al Gore is the only one who can polarize voters as much as Clinton (that's because of his former association with Prez. Clinton).  BUT I think he could win over people a lot better during a campaign than HRC.  That's my take on it anyway.

        •  Thank you. I like Hillary Clinton. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ignorant bystander

          Clearly it is fashionable among the netroots to trash Senator Clinton.  I'd say they despise her as much as the Republicans do.  It drives them to commit the same sin that they claim Joe Lieberman commits - bad-mouthing the leaders of your own party.

          Hillary Clinton is a great lady, and it is unfortunate that so many people in this country have gobbled up the media myth that she is a liberal merely pandering to the center.  Those who have actually done their homework - Anna Quindlen being one of them - know that Clinton has always been socially moderate, one who seeks common ground with conservatives.

          I for one am seriously considering supporting Senator Clinton for the nomination in 2008.  Of course, it's far out, and I'll wait to see everybody debate in 2007.  It saddens me that I'll have to spend so much time debunking the conventional wisdom that Republicans and Democrats alike love to spread about one of this nation's greatest assets.

          •  FAIR ENOUGH. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            So there are people who support Ms. Clinton for President. Thank you for having the courage to voice an unpopular opinion.

            In my many hours spent on the interweb - of which DK represents only some - I simply have not encountered much enthusiasm for her (potential) candidacy.  I don't think I'm going out on a limb, by saying that it's been somewhat sparse; nor, I think, will it be earth-shatteringly controversial for me to say that the reasons support for her seems sparse could boil down to this :

            her already-cemented "lightning rod" status


            her perceived hawkishness on the War

          •  I like Hillary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ignorant bystander

            I think she would make a fine president.  But I don't want her to run.  I think she would be polarizing, and I'm sick of that.  And there are way too many horrible challenges for our next president, whoever he/she may be, to have a polarized country.  

            Hillary is very effective right where she is.  I can see her in the future as majority leader in the Senate, as effective as Johnson was.  (Not now, Harry can stay where he is, the right man for this time.)  But in the future, I see Hillary.  

            I have always liked Edwards and am glad to see he is doing well.  And I LOVE Elizabeth Edwards.  

            But for now, I'm holding my powder.  Waiting to see.  

          •  Hillarycare (0+ / 0-)

            is all you need to know about Hillary.  What a disastrous piece of shit that thing was.  What a disaster it was for the Democrats in the subsequent midterm election.

            I find it difficult to trust someone who devises a healthcare policy without placing ONE FUCKING PHYSICIAN on the advisory board.


          •  common ground sucks (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            "Clearly it is fashionable among the netroots to trash Senator Clinton."

            this is not about fashion; hillary is trashed here because she is a gutless triangulating calculating coward regarding iraq -

            "Clinton has always been socially moderate, one who seeks common ground with conservatives."

            Ned Lamont says it best, that it is time to stop seeking common ground with the bush admin, and it is instead time to start working for the common GOOD.

            a totally awesome slogan!

            "Clinton has always been socially moderate"

            horsesh*t; hillary is a closet radical feminist lesbian; during bill's reign, it was hillary who caused the dems to lose the house in 1994 by her pushing bill to wed the dem party to gay rights.

            in college (yale) in 1970, hillary was a supporter of a black panther party member who committed murder -

            I am not trying to knock the panthers or the gays here, just pointing out that hillary is no "social moderate."

            hillary sucks; she is my last choice. edwards is definitely MUCH better than hillary; at least edwards has recanted on iraq -

            edwards has integrity as a social moderate; hillary is all fake.

            every time I see hillary's face on a DLC web page banner I hate her even more.

            as someone over at firedoglake said, all DLC is vichy france under petain.

            and speaking of the DLC, it seems that they no longer list the names of each & every DLC member on the official DLC website; gee, I wonder why the DLC vichy france bathroom tile scum are now afraid to have all of their names listed there; they used to list such.

            here, you try to find the complete DLC member list here; I can't.


            •  source? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              hillary is a closet radical feminist lesbian

              You got a source for that, or did you just pull it out of your ass?

              •  connect the dots - (0+ / 0-)

                you need to connect the dots here; either bill or hillary was the impetus to wed the dem party to gay rights in 1993 -

                hillary is the more likely candidate.

                •  Damn! I hate it when Democrats espouse gay rights (0+ / 0-)


                  •  whatever - (0+ / 0-)

                    whatever -

                    I remember it was something like just the third day of bill clinton's presidency in 1993 when he came outta the gate asserting gay rights for the military -

                    it was a monumental political miscalculation which cost the dems the senate and the house in 1994 and set in motion the political ascendancy of the american right-wing evangelical fundamentalist base that elected george bush president in 2000 (well, that and a little diebold magic) -

                    and hillary was the cause of it all; she is a closet radical feminist lesbian.

                    and no, gay rights is not worth losing all three branches of govt to the repubs over.

                    to this very day we are paying dearly politically for the clintons' advocacy of gay rights back in 1993.

                    •  Ask any person who knows anything about politics (0+ / 0-)

                      and they will tell you that the 1994 Republican victories stemmed from a lot more than gay rights for the military.  It had to do with a corrupt Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.  It had to do with Hillary's overreaching (yes, overreaching) on healthcare.  It had to do with the conservative movement, which started in 1964 with Barry Goldwater, reaching its high tide.  Gay rights may have played a role, but only one of many factors.

                      You call Hillary a closet radical feminist lesbian - that's Republican language if I ever saw it.

                      •  entire palate of - (0+ / 0-)

                        "the 1994 Republican victories stemmed from a lot more than gay rights for the military."

                        actually, it was the entire palate of clinton-esque pro-gay and pro-gay rights stuff that did the dems in in 1994, and not just gay rights for the military -

                        I was very close to the right-wing evangelicals back in 1993 & 1994, especially right-wing evangelical radio, and I saw first-hand how the right-wing evangelicals became outraged and how they used the clinton gay rights nonsense to mobilize and organize themselves into the voting lobby that in 1994 threw out the congressional dems and who in 2000 elected bush -

                        all that other stuff that you mentioned was peripheral window dressing.

                        "You call Hillary a closet radical feminist lesbian - that's Republican language if I ever saw it."

                        no, it's the truth -

                        I remember hearing on right-wing evangelical radio in 1994 how hillary headed some US delegation to china for some human rights conference there, where hillary pushed to have five sexes formally defined & formally recognized:

                        • male hetero
                        • male homo
                        • female hetero
                        • female homo
                        • transgender

                        I have absolutely nothing against any of these groups; I am just telling you what motivated the right-wing evangelical voter block, the voter block that was most responsible for throwing the dems out of congress in 1994 -

                        I also remember right-wing evangelical radio talking about some gay-themed Christmas party that the clintons held at the WH -

                        this is red meat for right-wing evangelicals, don't you get it?

                        I was there in the thick of it then; I saw it first-hand; I remember hearing how pat robertson's mailing list membership mushroomed in 1993, and I assure you it had nothing to do with hillary's health insurance plan or congressional dem corruption.

              •  Sounds like it's GOP propaganda. nt (0+ / 0-)
            •  I don't know if I agree (0+ / 0-)

              with everything you posted here but AMEN on the DLC rant. They are so over.

              Clinton, Bill lost me on that crap big time. I don't know why everyone is so up with Warner. He's got DLC written all over him. Edwards has progressive credentials, but is a perceived moderate. BINGO.

        •  The average, moderate Democrat who doesn't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          spend all day on the Internet tends to love HRC.  Quite frankly, I don't think it matters if the netroots trash her ad nauseum, because they aren't her base (which has the potential to be huge) and she sure as hell doesn't need them for fundraising.  

        •  The hearing's already being held. (0+ / 0-)

          Every day at sites like dKos,there is an ongoing debate about Hilary and every other prominent Dem. If you'd like a special Hilary Debate Hearing Fest, it may make a good diary for you to post, and get it rolling. See how many comments you get, and what they are.

          But there is the ongoing dialogue here, and Hil isn't excluded. Of anywhere on the web, or off, I expect to see the most cogent pro-Hilary - and anti-Hilary - comments here. And at least the anti- comments at dKos aren't predicated on her ass or her haircut. Please post whatever you think we need to know.

          Whatever is posted here, about Hil or anyone, let's post on the meat of the matter - and personally, I'd prefer beef over grouse!

          Now, here's my contribution to our shish kebebs.

          I like Hilary Clinton just fine. I'm sure we agree on much more than not. I won't enumerate, but probably 85%. If she wanted to move to Maryland, I'd love to have her alongside Barb Mikulski as my senators.

          I don't want to nominate her because she was wrong in Iraq, and still leans wrong, IMHO. This was too dreadful a mistake to get a "gimme" on, certainly absent any early and concerted back-pedaling on her part. Iraq is the worst Executive decision in our country in - what? - fifty, or a hundred, or more - years! I'm not impressed with even limited support for it, certainly not this far into the needless carnage.

          I'm not impressed with her level of something less definable - call it ability to be inspirational. She doesn't make me want to raise a fist and holler "Hell, yeah!" Yeah, this ability is not a virtue, and some bad people used and use it, too. Charisma may seep into this equation, too.

          Finally, I don't trust the ugly reaction her candidacy would provoke. I don't know why, but she makes a lot of idiots crawl out from under rocks on election day. It's not her fault. I believe it is real. Despite the amusement factor in taunting morons, this shouldn't drain off our momentum and energy in a fight for the American political soul.

          That said, even at this moment, much less after reading the hypothetical future Hilary Debate Fest, I would, were she nominated, pull her lever in  a heartbeat, and gladly.

          For now, the people who seem to have been right the soonest on Iraq, whose very existence won't draw on a toxic vote source that is more often dormant and ininvolved, and who can make me fight my way through a crowd, just to shake their hand and hopefully impart my mote of energy to them, are people like Gore, Feingold, Edwards, and Dean. Many other big Ds have my admiration, including Kerry, Mikulski, Reid, Boxer and Warner - and the Big Dawg.

          Yours in solidarity - in November!

          I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

          by labradog on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:06:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Lightning Rod Candidate (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        daveinchi, ThunderHawk13, majcmb1

        "Outside of her immediate staff and Bill, and Chelsea, who DOES think that Hillary would be such a great candidate?"

        That's an easy one to answer: The Republicans & the MSM want her as the nominee.

        In matters of conscience, the Law of Majority has no place. -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by Ranting Roland on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:12:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (183)
  • Community (81)
  • Baltimore (76)
  • Bernie Sanders (57)
  • Civil Rights (47)
  • Freddie Gray (43)
  • Elections (35)
  • Culture (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Law (29)
  • Racism (28)
  • Labor (27)
  • Education (24)
  • Economy (24)
  • 2016 (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Politics (22)
  • Rescued (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site