Skip to main content

We now have a full year of trends. See how dramatically things have changed in a year? I'm willing to bet things will be equally different a year from today. As for Dodd, his "attach myself to Lieberman's hip" strategy doesn't seem to be bearing much fruit ...

Seriously, the big winner in this edition of the poll is Edwards, who if I had to guess on a favorite at this very early point, I'd say it was him.

dKos reader poll. 6/20. 12,393 respondents.

              2006             2005
              July May Mar Jan Nov Sep Aug Jul

Feingold        38  44  48  30  19  19  16  10
Clark           17  15  15  22  26  34  35  34
Edwards         15   8   7   8  12  10   7   7
Warner          10  10  11  12  14   4   3   5
Other            3   6   3   6   2   3   4   4
No Freakin' Clue 3   4   6   6   6   6   9  13
H. Clinton       2   2   2   3   6   8   9  10
Kerry            2   1   1   3   2   2   1   2
Richardson       2   1   2   3   5   3   4   4
Biden            1   1   1   1   1   3   3   3
Bayh             1   1   1   1   1   1   1   2
Vilsack          0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0
Daschle          0   1   0
Dodd             0   0

-----

Do you approve of ... (May results in parenthesis)

Howard Dean (6,695 votes)

Yes 90 (87)
No 7 (9)

Harry Reid (5,654 votes)

Yes 70 (65)
No 24 (26)

Nancy Pelosi (5,741 votes)

Yes 36 (30)
No 52 (56)

Chuck Schumer (5,875 votes)

Yes 27
No 62

Rahm Emanuel (5,223 votes)

Yes 30
No 58

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:22 AM PDT.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Lieberman's Clinton gambit backfiring? (4+ / 0-)

    It could already be doing so.

    Meanwhile, as a sop to being on topic:

    A-yep, those poll results are about right.

    •  On polls, (3+ / 0-)

      Since Gore, the overwhelming favorite of the Daily Kos community for 2008 was skipped in this poll, let me remind the readers that Gore wins almost every poll among more active electorate out there for the nomination:

      1. Daily Kos Poll May/June 2006: Gore 68%, Feingold 15%, Clark 4%, Hillary < 1%
      1. Alternet Readers' poll: Gore 38%, Feingold 20%, Edwards 11%, Hillary 7%
      1. TNR Readers Poll: Gore 25%, Obama: 18%, Warner 15%, 12%

      In most real (but also less politically active/aware) world this is how things roughly stand: Hillary 33%, Gore: 17%, Edwards: 13% (an approximate average based on a variety of nationwide polls, and statewide polls  ).

      Evidently, the more people get to know Gore, the more they're pulling for him as their choice for President.

      I hope that Al Gore will enter the race by making global warming his signature issue (and in doing so conveying his message to hundres of millions of Americans during the course of the campaign), along with these key aspects:

      1. resurrecting the economy (that has been much damaged from the strong state that Clinton and Gore built towards during their tenure in the whitehouse).
      1. building bridges with nations around the world, that have been jeopardized by the war-mongering Cheney/Bush/Big Oil/Neocon coterie.
      •  Gore for Sec'y of State (0+ / 0-)

        But a blatantly smart man is not allowed to be President anymore.  But we are allowed to have smart Secretaries of State.  Sadly, some of the smartest in my lifetime have been evil ... it would be nice to have a smart and not-evil one for a change.

        •  Gore's vision will be better served as President (0+ / 0-)

          Gore's vision will be better served as President because the country needs many bases to be covered come 2009.

          And why report to someone else on narrow auspices, when he is best qualified to run the whole show.

          But a blatantly smart man is not allowed to be President anymore.

          So, could you please reveal which not-so-smart man/woman you support for President then?

          :)

          Come on, accepting that media spin induced state of affairs (not entirely accurate either) actually translates into: "a non-Republican is not allowed to be President anymore". We can't have that allowed to be perpetrated and continued. Can we?

      •  Can We All Celebrate One Thing? (0+ / 0-)

        Okay, well, 98% of us at least...

        And that's that Hillary, at least with this crowd, has dropped to about 2%.  Our one sure-loss candidate is falling by the wayside in the blogosphere.  If only this holds up out in the broader electorate.

        She is, after all, the Republicans' only hope.

  •  Yeah, baby! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MeanBoneII, ourprez08, bergerc84, machka

    Go, Johnny go.

    JRE 2008 "80% of republicans are democrats who don't know what's going on." - Bobby Kennedy, Jr.

    by DrFrankLives on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:19:08 AM PDT

  •  Could someone give me concrete examples of why (4+ / 0-)

    Pelosi is doing such a poor job compared to Reid?  Is this a double standard or does she deserve such low ratings?

    •  part of it is probably (13+ / 0-)

      because Reid has a lot more minority rights parlimentary things he can pull than Pelosi does in an attempt to at least slow the republicans down.  In the House, when you're in the minority, you basically have power to do jack shit.

      The thing I dont get is why Schumer and Emmanuals numbers are so low.  The only things I can think of is that people are mad that they're sometimes promoting a particular candidate in a contested primary.  Obviously their fundraising numbers don't seem to be relevent to people.

      # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
      http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:22:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Schumer (4+ / 0-)

        I thin part of it with Schumer was how he equivocated over whether the DSCC would abide by the results of the Ct. primary.

        •  ok, i know that CT-Sen is important to people (7+ / 0-)

          but its not that important. jeez.

          # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
          http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:31:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not so much CT (6+ / 0-)

            The negative reaction over it to me at least wasn't about Connecticut but over the fact that he toyed with the possibility of the DSCC financially supporting Lieberman if he loses the primary.  In terms of evaluating his job as chair of the DSCC, the willingness to give money from the DSCC, which was donated to elect Democrats, to the loser of the Democratic primary cuts against his performance as chair of the DSCC.  To me at least its about the principle and not about Lieberman.

        •  Schumer (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geotpf, kath25

          For me it's just my perception that he is a true "old time" politician, a politician's politician, voting for convenience, log-rolling, playing the PAC game, ensuring re-election above all else, and always seeming terribly insincere to me.  No time to list all the examples, but of late he's been spending a lot of time schilling for his good client Jet Blue - the underlying principles or issues at stake don't seem to matter.  Maybe he and Joe Lieberman are somewhat alike.

      •  A lot of it has to do with their (7+ / 0-)
        constant whining about Dean and the DNC. Most people here support the 50-state plan and are excited about the long-term prospects of building a national party. However every month or so another story comes out where Rahm or Schumer are throwing knives at Dean because they are not getting the support they want.

        I admit some of the anger has to do with Lieberman, some to do with Duckworth and a bit of lingering anger over Hackett. A more recent anger has to do with Rahm's 14 district plan.

        However the greater frustration is that leadership seems to be leading the league in complaining and attacking the base, rather than leading us to victory.

        "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again, but already it was impossible to say which was which."

        by Lefty the playwright on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:31:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so anyone who criticizes dean for any reason (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pernoclone, Jordan LFW

          deserves to be thrown under the bus?

          # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
          http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:32:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am not saying that (5+ / 0-)
            I am just explaining the frustration. Dean has 90 percent approval and we like his plan. So far we have not seen a similar plan from the Congress leaders. In fact, what we see, again basically every month, in the Times or Wash Post, is another attack piece sourced back to Rahm and Schumer about how Dean has destroyed the party by bulidng the party.

            "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again, but already it was impossible to say which was which."

            by Lefty the playwright on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:37:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well, i'm not sure what 'plan' you're looking for (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shawn, ourprez08

              Emmanual and Schumer aren't supposed to look past november 2006.

              # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
              http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:40:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nov. *would be* a plan. (0+ / 0-)
                What I saw today was the DCCC saying that they will contest about 14 districts. I'm sure they'll blame that small number on Dean building up the national party. It isn't enough. It isn't a good plan. And if they are doing record fundraising, then why complain, why have such a narrow focus and why act as if they have no resources?

                I want them to do a good job. I want a November tidal wave. However some days I read the news and think that the DSCC and DCCC would rather be right than win, and that annoys me.

                "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again, but already it was impossible to say which was which."

                by Lefty the playwright on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:52:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Where did you get 14 districts? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Shawn

                  I just read an article that the DCCC has $30 million in TV ads doled out over the next few months for the two dozen (24) closest races.  

                  The Dems have great VP candidates for 2008: Richardson, Bayh, Clark, Sebelius, etc, but who's going to head the ticket?

                  by DemBrock on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:01:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  No, Just Those Who Criticize for BAD REASONS n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  Who said throw them under the bus? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Overseas, raincrow

            How is saying you disapprove of their performance "throwing them under the bus"?  It's not like we're calling for their impeachment, imprisonment or execution.  We just want them to do better.

            As for the fundraising numbers, if I really believed that Schumer and Rahm were responsible for the great results, it would indeed make a difference to me.  But I don't see any reason to give them the sole credit -- they have huge teams working for them.  I believe in little people, not CEOs.

          •  please stop being so disengenuous (0+ / 0-)

            you are about to flame out by posting laughable DLC talking points just like RonK did yesterday.  I can see it coming.

      •  Schumer - Lieberman (0+ / 0-)

        Emmanuel - Duckworth

        Both - not being on board with Dean's 50 state plan and criticizing Dean because they want money that's needed to rebuild the party in every state.

        There's a natural tension between the head of DNC and the house and Senate Dem leaders, but these guys have been dicks about it.

        RULE OF LAW. That's all the reason you need to oppose Republicans.

        by nightsweat on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:04:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  why do you play dumb? (0+ / 0-)

        You know why Schumer and Emanuel's numbers are low and why people do not like them.

    •  nature of the beast maybe.. (8+ / 0-)

      It's much harder for Pelosi to control the caucus in the House. Reid only has to control 44.

    •  Because she's in a super safe seat (5+ / 0-)

      people want her to be a bomb thrower.  She talks like she represents a 55/45 district instead of an 80/20 one.

      A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

      by Webster on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:27:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pelosi (7+ / 0-)

      She was critical of Feingold's censure resolution. She could have just kept quiet if she didn't like it because she is not even in the Senate.

      "All My Heroes Have Always Been Democrats" -- Al Rodgers (and me too now that he mentions it).

      by OLinda on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:52:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Impeachment (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cecrops Tangaroa, Overseas, raincrow

        What I also don't get is why she refuses to support impeachment if we retake the House. Hellooo?? 74% of the country does NOT like the President. I'd gander that at least 40% would dance in the streets if he were impeached.

        •  If the American (0+ / 0-)

          people are unhappy with their leadership, they'll impeach, so to speak, at the polls.  Plus, you need to investigate, find evidence of crimes and convict before you impeach.  Thus, if you're for impeachment now, I'd argue you do not believe in "innocent until proven guilty" or "everyone deserves a trial" (even enemy combatants).  Impeachment is a distraction at this point.  

        •  Impeachment is pointless (0+ / 0-)

          I am not sure that a failed impeachment hearing helps the country or the Democratic party.  And it will be a failed impeachment, because there is no way in hell 67 senators (including at least 15-17 Republicans) will vote to remove Bush from office.

          •  More important is to turn the spotlight on ... (0+ / 0-)

            What good would an impeachment do ... we'd get Cheney as a lame duck President at "best", and a lot of time wasted that could be put to good political use at the worst.

            Far better to use chairmanships of committees to put the spotlight on six years of Republican abuse of power in both the executive AND the House itself.

            •  Typical Feingold (0+ / 0-)

              If Feingold had just waited until November (a few months would not have made a squat of difference), once the Democrats had retaken at least the House if not the Senate, then his resolution would have had some traction.

              And if he had really wanted it to succeed, he would have discussed it with fellow Democrats, built a coalition, pulled people on board, and presented a forceful front.

              But this wasn't his goal.  It never was.  Even though it was the only strategy that would have worked.  If he was really interested in it working, why would he have gone about it in a way that was so hamfisted and was guaranteed to fail?

              This is the problem with Feingold.  There are people like Obama or Clark or Edwards or Warner or even Sebelius or Schweitzer who are every bit as liberal as Feingold.  And without giving up one inch of ground, they know how to articulate our Progressive ideals in a manner that is based on detente and diplomacy and coalition building.  And all are incredibly adept at this.  Because it works.  They know how to take our ideas to the masses.

              Feingold on the other hand, takes the positions and presents them with hyperbolic, blustery language and in histrionic tones.  And in the end, he can't even get dyed-in-the-wools like Kucinich to side with him.  

              As a result, now, when the Democrats would have wanted to bring impeachment up after we had the House votes to get it up and running, now our case is dramatically weakened because he blew the load while everyone else was building a solid unified front.  (He's like the political LeRoy Jenkins.)

              While Feingold's histrionic approach panders well to the liberal blogosphere, in the end, there is nothing to show for it because it doesn't yield results.  His approach fails and is reduced to bluster.  A President can't lead by liberal bluster.  He needs to be able to take our bedrock Progressive ideals, and without sacrificing one inch of them, present them in a way that at least 51% of the people can stomach.  Obama, Clark, Edwards, and Warner understand this kind of detente; they understand this kind of leadership.  But Feingold is yet to prove that he does as well.  When you can't even get Kucinich on your side, that is just poor communication of what it means to be Left.  And in the end, nothing is accomplished.

              •  No substance here; and BTW, Russ rocks. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SpecialEFX, NeuvoLiberal, santos

                This post begins from a set of assumptions. It then announces other assumptions it treats as facts that prove the first set of assumptions. And then it finishes begging the question of what it set out to prove in the first place.

                For example: Obama, Clark, Edwards, Sebelius, Warner and Schweitzer are all as liberal as Feingold, and "know how to articulate our Progressive ideals in a manner that is based on detente and diplomacy and coalition building?"  

                And you say they "do this incredibly well." And you know this how? All the elections Wesley Clark has won over his storied political career? John Edwards' crushing defeat of John Kerry in the 2004 primaries?

                Moreover, you cannot say that all these candidates are equally progressive without wallpapering over some huge differences. Warner and Edwards oppose same-sex marriage, Feingold supports it. Edwards voted for the Patriot Act, Feingold against it. These issues go to the equality of American citizens under the law and our right to live free from unreasonable and unlawful surveillance from the state. And let us not forget the tiny matter of Iraq about which Clark could not seem to even make up his mind and Edward supported with rhetoric that came off as a bad Tony Blair impersonation.

                I suppose if these issues mean nothing to you, you can say they're all equal.

                And then we get the whole "detente" thing--in which we are told that compromising with the Republicans is the way to win, never mind the substance of the matters about which we're asked to compromise. So sign welfare reform so kids will go hungry, cut medicaid so that people will die, send U.S. troops any fool place George W. Bush wants you to, rip up the Constitution--just never do quite as much as the Republicans really want and all will be well.

                What I hate most is the way these centrists who lecture about remaining reasonable are themselves so seldom armed with anything but unarticulated prejudice.

                •  detente (0+ / 0-)

                  Who said anything about comprimising with Republicans being a necessary part of detente?

                  Your post proposes a straw argument.  Introduces circular hyperbole.  Twists from hyperbole into fiction.  And then discards itself.

                  You ask what detente Clark has ever demonstrated?  He rose to be Army Chief of Staff and NATO Supreme Allied Commander.   Out of many hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, he rose to be the second ranking soldier in our armed forces.   And he did so with greater acclaim than anyone since Marshall or Patton.   If you imagine that that can be accomplished without a mastery of diplomacy, then you are basing your statement on non-logic.

                  Getting back to your argument with yourself about detente meaning comprimise with the GOP- I have no clue where you got that one.  Instead, let's start with building coalitions within the Democratic party- which Clark is doing with his efforts through WesPAC- while Feingold goes off on his lone wolf impeachment strategy without involving one other Democrat.  He is the only Democrat in the entire Senate who introduces resolutions without connsulting his colleagues.  The only one.  You can't be a leader if noone's following.  

                  It's great that Feingold can air his views as dramatic pieces of liberal street theater.  But if he can't get anyone to go along with him, then it is a failure of leadership.

                  Feingold has proven monumentally incapable and unwilling to work with his party.  List all the Congressmen and Senators who supported him on his hamfisted impeachment resolution.  Go ahead.  This oughta be good.  List them as a towering monument to his leadership skills.  Come on.  List them.  No, really- list them.

                  List them as a towering monument to all he's actually accomplished as a Senator.  Talk is one thing, but where are the tangible results?  His signature piece of legislation- his detente with Republican McCain (oh, sorry, I forgot, you oppose that sort of thing.  oops.)- has been whittled down from a mountain to a pebble because it wasn't based in law.  It's more sieve than dam.  Great results.

                  •  Use a dictionary, much? (0+ / 0-)

                    Detente, the term you so seriously misuse, is defined as an easing of tensions and conflict. Implicitly, this is done by arriving at agreements on the subject matter of the conflict. Thus, Kissinger in the early 1970s is described as ushering in "detente" with the Soviets by beginning the SALT talks and defusing the ideological tenor of superpower conflict. Ergo, when you use the word detente to describe Democrats' relations with Republicans, I take that to mean compromise with them. If that doesn't square with your idiosyncratic idea of what the word means, it's hardly my fault.

                    I do see politics pragmatically. A good leader sees the implementation of right policies by convincing others to his cause. But the "right" policies come before the "convincing." Cordiality is a virtue. But so many people on the left now place it above our other values. This is a mistake. Feingold's stand on censure was correct because it took note of the President's lawbreaking and threw the Republicans on the defensive. The Republican effort to make this a campaign issue when the President in the 30's pollwise is laughable. And the failure of other Democrats to rally to Feingold's cause is, like the party's refusal to stand against the war, against the Patriot Act, against the illegal spying programs, not the failure of his leadership but theirs. It is not Feingold's responsibility to alter the political calculus being undertaken by the rest of the Democratic caucus. It is his responsibility to stand for the positions he knows to be right. And in this, he's almost unique in the Democratic Party.

                    A President who recognizes his powers are limited to what is ennumerated in the Constitution, a President who believes he can just break the law any time he chooses, a President who believes people should not be prohibited from marriage and all its privileges just because they love someone of the same sex is something worth fighting for. The unambiguous candidate in favor of this is Feingold.

    •  Rules of the Senate vs. House (0+ / 0-)

      If Pelosi and Reid swapped jobs I'm guessing they would swap approval rates. You look better running the minority in the Senate because you can actually win some fights with 40% of the vote. In the House that is useless.

      Pelosi has done a great job of solidifying the Democratic caucus and along with Louise Slaughter has laid out the ground rules for a new Democratic majority - winning legislative battles with open debate, not backroom highjackings.

      Like YearlyKos? You'll love Rising Tide New Orleans, August 25-27, 2006

      by joejoejoe on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:00:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I gave Pelosi a negative rating... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpecialEFX, raincrow

      because she is a horrible interview.  She may be a good congresswoman, and she may even be a competent leader when it comes to keeping the Dem congressional caucus in order, but she just doesn't do a very good job at expressing Democratic ideals to the American public in my opinion.    

      The Dems have great VP candidates for 2008: Richardson, Bayh, Clark, Sebelius, etc, but who's going to head the ticket?

      by DemBrock on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:06:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No (0+ / 0-)

      In fact, in several respects, Pelosi is doing a better job. She is staunch and holds the caucus together better, more consistently than Reid. I think we'll all realize this retrospectively when she become Speaker next term. Reid has all the cards in his hand, but he refuses to play them. Why? Why does he fail to support Democratic Candidate Carter against the incumbent Republican John Ensign? Why does he fail to join Feingold's effort to censure Bush? Why does he fail to win the support of our Democratic Senators for filibusters against Roberts and Alito? And why does our leader, young Markos, cut him so much slack?

    •  she doesn't have the right reproductive (0+ / 0-)

      equiptment.

      People get all excited over Harry and his tough manyly talk, forgetting his social conservative view points.  Pelosi gets the same results, but she's not a man so it doesn't count.

  •  It seems like (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, ourprez08

    that Feingold got that rush of support after his censure thing, but people are now backing away from him slowly, and that support seems to be seeping to Clark (which is where most of the people rushed to Feingold from) and Edwards to me.

    # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
    http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:21:07 AM PDT

    •  I kinda disagree. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ourprez08

      Look how far Clark has fallen off since last year.

      •  Can't Tell with Winner Takes All (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kimberley, spartan68, rockhound

        The winner takes all nature of the poll does not allow this question to be settled.  The limitation of only being able to choose one radio button does not reflect true preferences.  Only when you consider second, third, etc. choices using the Condorcet method.  If we had the information Condorcet could provide, we would know if Clark is just as popular as ever, we just like Russ more, now; or if Clark really has fallen out of favor.  Winner Takes All voting method tells us jack shit.

    •  IMO, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nocore

      i think Gen Clark on the ticket as pres or v pres would help get a grip on the world's situation.  he's "been there, done that."  

      and as most intelligent people (like Clark) do, they learn from past experiences and try hard not to repeat the wrong decisions.  

      (personally, i would like to see Gen Clark as pres)

    •  No (0+ / 0-)

      He lost support because he supports Israel's campaign against Hezbollah.  I think this is the correct position, but last time I mentioned why I lost trusted user status.

  •  Edwards put in an appearance (9+ / 0-)
    At the Seattle Gnome-Dex a couple of weeks ago.  I think it helped his standing.

     "I'm trying to retrain and recondition myself when I get asked a question to actually answer it -- to not say what I've been trained to say, to not say what's careful and cautious," said the former U.S. senator from North Carolina, widely considered a likely candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
    Which I think is true.  He sounded too polished in the 2004 debates, while Kerry was more genuine.  (For all the good that did him.) I'm glad he sees a need for change.

    "The problem is that we're so trained and so conditioned over a long period of time that being normal and real and authentic requires you to shed that conditioning," Edwards said of politicians. "It is not an easy thing to do."

    Edwards then alluded to the next presidential election.

    "My own view is the next president of the United States, or certainly the one after, is likely to be the single candidate who doesn't sound like a politician," he said. "I want to tell you on a personal level, I'm trying every way I know how not to do it.

    Here's the source:Gnomedex

    "I believe in compulsory cannibalism. If people were forced to eat what they kill, there would be no more wars." - Abbie Hoffman

    by Jensequitur on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:21:42 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps I'm missing something, (5+ / 0-)

    but it's unclear to me why Markos thinks that Edwards is the big winner of the straw poll.

    Over the course of the last year Edwards moves from 7 to 15, but Feingold moves from 10 to 38 among Kossacks.

    Wouldn't that make Feingold the big winner?

  •  Bears out in the other polls yesterday (5+ / 0-)

    looking over the secondary polls, Edwards is pretty strong here.

    Polls

    A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

    by Webster on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:22:30 AM PDT

  •  Kos is correct, Edwards has the early lead. (11+ / 0-)

    Leading the Iowa Poll plus broadest acceptability (Gallup Poll) puts Edwards in front.

  •  Edwards (10+ / 0-)
    the only one trending up over the last three months; he's also been gaining in my monthly poll over the same time period.

    Alex
    Choose Our President 2008

    •  Huge Edwards fan here, this is music to my ears. (11+ / 0-)

      Feingold fan also, but Edwards is the fav.

      "If you can't stand behind our troops, then, please, feel free to stand in front of them."

      by panicbean on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:29:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Edwards is the guy (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mbair, ourprez08, panicbean, machka, dem4evr, bumpa

      He's going to end up the nominee.. mark my words.

      "Whenever someone says he's going to save your soul, keep a tight grip on your wallet."

      by bergerc84 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:55:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also my official prediction (0+ / 0-)
        last June:

        Alex
        Choose Our President 2008

        •  Edwards, in wartime? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nocore

          I'm not going to filibuster on this point, like I have several times previously. But I want to hear a real rationale from one of these Edwards supporters as to how Edwards can make the case that he is the best qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

          Because--due in no small part to the invasion of Iraq Edwards voted to authorize--it is more likely than not that in early 2008 this will still be a nation at war. Pretending we can run a wartime election campaign exclusively on domestic issues is folly.

          It is absolutely necessary that the Democratic nominee have real foreign and defense credentials, like Clark's three years as Supreme NATO Commander, Gore's eight years of personal diplomacy while Vice-President, Kerry's twenty-two years as a U.S. Senator obsessed with foreign policy, Richardson's personal diplomacy with the North Koreans, or Feingold or Bayh's Senate experience. As I see it, this outright disqualifies Edwards, Warner, Schweitzer and the other governors.

          •  Most Americans agree that it's time to... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ourprez08

            ...at least start withdrawing from Iraq. Keeping our military there, as Clark continues to advocate, isn't going to improve the situation. It will only continue to deteriorate. Edwards understands this, and says it's time for a phased withdrawal.

            Swing voters in November 2008 will have more pressing issues to consider than a failed military occupation halfway around the world. Thanks to the disastrous policies of Bush and his rubber-stamp Republicans, it's going to again be "the economy, stupid." People will be looking for hope. And Edwards is our best hope salesman, by a mile.

            •  So your argument is that Iraq doesn't matter? (0+ / 0-)

              Regardless of when or how you think the Iraq War should be brought to a close, the question is going to be who has the knowledge, experience and moral authority to lead on this issue.

              George W. Bush has already said it will be the next President who decides the longevity of our presence in Iraq, and we've all heard Condoleeza Rice speak of our "intergenerational commitment" to Iraq. Even as I write these words, the U.S. is building large bases in Iraq designed to be permanent fortresses.

              It would be lovely if I could believe it when you say

              Swing voters in November 2008 will have more pressing issues to consider than a failed military occupation halfway around the world.

              but in the end, I think we will still be fighting in Iraq in 2008. In fact, I would go so far as to say at the rate matters are deteriorating we will be fighting in more nations than just Iraq and Afghanistan.

              And since we are going to be still involved in this "failed military occupation halfway around the world", our sons and daughters will still be dying there, dismembered there, wounded there, forced to live through horrible violence there, probably somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 of them.

              Already every poll shows that Americans feel Iraq is the most serious issue facing the country. It's already becoming the issue driving the midterm elections. In all honesty, if we're still in Iraq in 2008, how can this not be the defining issue?

              We can't just talk about job-training programs and health care and ignore the growing pile of body bags. These soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq are the guys we went to college with, the boy who bagged your groceries last summer, the daughter of your neighbors down the street. I think their lives matter to swing voters, as does the credibility of the leader to whom their lives will be entrusted.

              And I'm sorry, but Edwards' three or four years of Senate service (before the 2004 campaign started in earnest) does not make him qualified to lead the United States out of the ever-worsening global crisis we find ourselves in.

              •  The support of the American people for this... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ourprez08

                ...war is gone. You think we're going to be fighting in more places than Iraq and Afghanistan? With what military? They've chewed up the National Guard, sent guys on three tours to Iraq, jacked up re-enlistment bonuses to preposterous levels just to keep warm bodies. We are stretched thin. Unless they start a draft, it is not happening, and the quickest path to electoral suicide is a draft.

                Gen. Casey is already talking about withdrawal plans. Republicans are talking about the need for the Iraqi government to take over security. They're holding out until after the mid-terms, because they know that once we start pulling out it's going to go from bad to much, much worse in Iraq, and then they'd pay the price on Election Day.

                By 2008, we will have only a fraction of the troops in Iraq that we have now, mostly holed up in those bases and staying out of the Shiite-Sunni civil war. The general consensus will be that the war was a waste, and people will be far more concerned about issues that hit much closer to home.

                •  Wishful thinking, just a little? (0+ / 0-)

                  First, I don't want to be understood at all as arguing the war is anything but a failure or that we should do anything but end the occupation quickly.

                  That said, I really do think the administration talk about a sooner rather than later withdrawal is merely window dressing. You say that the Republicans are talking tough only to retreat after the elections. But it is just as likely that the opposite is happening, that W. is trying to buy time with talk of withdrawal until the midterms, after which he can do as he pleases the last two years before dropping whatever mess Iraq is by then into the hands of his successor.

                  And we do know it will be a mess, whether run by the stooges governing there now, by Moqtadah Al-Sadr and his minions, or by the even worse possibilities. Moreover, the question of the wider war on terror will still be with us because of the effects of our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and what is happening right now in Lebanon.

                  In no way is this going to be an election in which the Democrats can afford to say that foreign and military policy experience does not matter. We have to have serious answers to these questions or we do not deserve to govern. Kerry has answers to these questions, Gore has answers to these questions, Feingold has answers to these questions, Clark has answers to these questions. And they all have the experience to know how to implement their ideas.

                  Edwards would be a foreign policy disaster as a candidate and a president at the precise time we cannot afford them.

              •  Understand Your Concerns (0+ / 0-)

                Everyday the crisis in Iraq grows, but we are also seeing a major crisis in the middle east which really scares me. I think the Iraq War will be a very important issue as will the ongoing crisis with Israel and Lebanon. Edwards is not a Clark or a Murtha, and so it's totally understandable for you to be concerned with how he will handle the current crisis. Edwards does want to redeploy troops, and start a phase out of troops in Iraq. Most people agree with this. He also wants to fire every American contractor and only hire Iraqi companies to rebuild their own country. He also wants all Americans to leave so that those permanent bases will never exist under his command. As for the current crisis in Israel, I do not know where he stands right now. I'm hoping that he will have the guts to say that Israel has stepped over the line and they should accept a cease fire. I'm hoping he will say that it is a threat to freedom to supply Israel with bombs. Here's to hoping. On the domestic front I think Edwards is the strongest candidate we have, I hope he'll choose someone like Clark for his veep. Together they could be a formidable ticket.

          •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

            For the last 40 years, Democrats have been slipping farther and farther on national security.  Since the early '70s, Republicans have been using the argument that "Democrats Can't Keep You Safe."  And they have been using it very effectively.  They have caricaturized Democrats as something like Stpehen Colbert's Russ Lieber character- whiny, turtleneck wusses who don't have the balls to lead America through times of crisis or danger.  And it's worked.

            And Democrats have let it happen.  

            We saw Bush speak at the NAACP this week.  It came off as superficial and disingenuous and left Republicans in no better- and maybe even a worse- position with black voters.  "We know rhetoric when we see it," said one observer at the event.

            Yet that is the same thing Democrats are doing on national security.  We are afraid to make any kind of real, substantial, meaty statement that we are serious about being able to lead this nation through crisis and danger.  

            We supported a solider like Kerry, but only because he passed the Russ Lieber litmus test of having come home and been a hippie.  Or we refer to how such and such guy- like Feingold or Edwards- will be great because they were on such and such piddly subcommittee.

            That's not going to cut it.

            For 40 years, we have been a party with weak credibility on national security.  When Republicans tell voters, "Democrats can't keep you safe," it registers.  It has worked and worked brilliantly for them.  We have been successfully cast as the wuss party.

            Bush spoke earlier this year at West Point graduation.  Despite the state of the war, the overwhelming majority of the soldiers respected him and were happy to see him.  Now, think back.  When was the last time that a Democratic President could go to West Point and get the same reception?  Was it Kennedy?  Was it that far back?  If that doesn't concern you, it should.  We didn't used to have a GOP-dominated military.  A half century ago, it was 50/50.  Where did we lose touch?

            If Democrats really want to re-gain a voice on national security, then we can't just make superficial gestures equivalent to Bush's NAACP speech.  We need to make big, substantial, bold gestures to show America that we are serious- and very serious- about keeping America safe.  We can be humanists and still be strong.

            Wes Clark would be one route to that.  We need to offer the American people an experienced intellect with balls and gravitas.  Or we will continue to be the party that, "can't keep America safe."

    •  ending poverty in 30 years (6+ / 0-)

      is what did it for me.  vision, vision, vision.  

      i've been voting "no freakin' clue" since last july.  but edwards finally won me over.

  •  Gore/Edwards (6+ / 0-)

    is a winning team. Al, please save the world from armageddon.

  •  Schumer and Emanuel (3+ / 0-)

    The dems have probably the strongest bench of Senate and House candidates in years, for the first time that I can remember, the DSCC and DCCC are beating their GOoPer counterparts in fundraising, and we have the best chance to take back the House since we lost it 94 and the Senate since we lost it in 02.  Why the love loss?

    It sucks living next door to Richard Nixon.

    by jkfp2004 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:27:03 AM PDT

  •  Interesting (8+ / 0-)

    You can definitely identify the moments when each potential candidate became noticed by the Daily Kos community.  

    For Warner....the November 2005 election of Tim Kaine, but he has been trailing off since then to only consistently garner 10% support.

    For Feingold...his censure resolution in January.

    For Edwards....he had a bump in the fall of 2005, which is when I think he said his Iraq War vote was a mistake, and this month with the release of the Pew Study.

    Clark has been bleeding support all year, but now seems to have stopped the bleeding with his appearance at Yearly Kos and his question and answer diaries here.

    •  Maybe also a bump with his poverty speech (0+ / 0-)

      There might also have been a bump with his speech calling for a reduction in poverty by 1/3 in a decade and elimination of poverty in 30 years.

      As I recall that got some discussion on dKos.

      •  Iowa Poll showing him beating Hillary Clinton... (0+ / 0-)

        ...and Gallup Poll showing him as the most acceptable and least unacceptable 2008 nominee among Democrats -- I think those both got people's attention.

        A whole lot of people really don't want to see Clinton get the nomination, for a number of reasons including that they don't think she can win. To stop her, Democrats will have to unite behind someone who can beat her, and there is now concrete evidence that Edwards can do that.

  •  IRV? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, ourprez08

    It might be interesting to run future polls like Instant Runoff Voting. It might provide a clearer picture of strength when second and maybe third choices are included.

  •  I voted Feingold (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, NeuvoLiberal, SeekCa

    but seemingly only as a protest vote considering I most identify with him but am realistic in the sense that I believe he is national unelectable at this time.

    I think the general consensus among people who post here is that Gore is their first choice. So please, for the sake of mabye prodding him into action, lets include him on the next poll because I guarentee his numbers will be in the 60s-70s.

  •  Edwards / Economist Article (8+ / 0-)

    Edwards -- totally great. Voted for him in the Illinois primary in 2004. (Ah, the lines in Chicago for Dem primaries. Don't miss it.)

    The Economist had an issue about the growing $$ inequality in America, and noted that many Americans fail to realize how poorly the country is doing as a whole. Edwards' "Two Americas" speech often fails to resonate with the Middle Class because they refuse to see themselves as the "other" America.

    Edwards is going to have to push economic issues HARD and with solid info if he wants to gain traction on this.

  •  Edwards (6+ / 0-)

    is a candidate that wouldn't scare the southern cons into voting against their interests because of learned prejudices.

    The liberal label shouldn't be an issue here and that will be a big plus in a general election, if there is a general election.
    PEACE!

    •  Edwards is a liberal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      machka

      a real one with a 100% rating from NARAL to boot, but Joe and Judy six-pack trust him because he's one of them. That's a powerful combo.

      I posted the exit poll from NC 2004 for the Senate race in the straw poll thread:
      FOX News Election Day Polls

      So in a state that goes 58% to Bush - 53% of those same voters would pull the lever for Edwards. Kerry lost NC agreed? K-E never campaigned there, agreed?

      •  In NC Edwards (0+ / 0-)

        is a liberal, but with all due respect he really isn't a liberal, in fact there are very few liberals in Congress and he certainly isn't one of them.

        He certainly is electable in all regions and that is another test that he isn't a liberal, we will just have to disagree on this, although I guess we both would support him and be happy to do so.
        Have a great weekend and thanks for the comments
        PEACE!

      •  He's pretty much to the (0+ / 0-)

        right of center in the Democratic party. I think his voting record in the Senate was roughly comparable to Bayh.

        •  Right of center? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MeanBoneII, ChesCo Dem

          He co-sponsored hate crimes legislation, is for gay adoption, for universal health care, against NAFTA, for alternative drug courts, for working bonds, for a stepping stone jobs program, for investing in ethanol, solar and wind, and for raising the minimum wage. I don't consider him to be a big liberal like myself but I see him left of center rather then right of center on most issues.

    •  OIC, we should allow bigoted (0+ / 0-)

      southerners chose who is president?  

      I would much rather ignore the south than placate it if that is the case.  

      BTW, the Clarkies make that same claim about Clark.

      •  and again you prove your ignorance (0+ / 0-)

        Please go away.  Someone from Pennsyltucky is attcking the South as a benighted place of ignorance and bigotry?

        Ha ha ha ha ha.

        Pittsburgh on one end, Philadelphia on the other, and Alabama in between.

        JRE 2008 "80% of republicans are democrats who don't know what's going on." - Bobby Kennedy, Jr.

        by DrFrankLives on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:25:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Edwards (0+ / 0-)

    If I'm going to vote for Edwards in a primary, he has to explain two things.  1.  Why did he let Dick Cheney get away with saying they had never met.  This made him look like an absentee Senator.  2.  And this is something he can't explain because he's full of shit if he denies doing it: Why did he gay bait Mary Cheney?  No seriously, find the clip and watch the smug-self satisfied way he says how proud he is of Dick for having a gay daughter and for loving her.  It was such a blatant and debasing way to tell the right-wing foot soldiers that their man had a queer in the family.  Oh, it makes me sick.  I actually felt sorry for Dick Cheney in that one moment because the proper response would have been to say "Listen you little prick, I don't make jokes about your wife's weight so you should lay off my daughter's sexuality."

    "The only difference between me and the Surrealists is that I am a Surrealist" S. Dali

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:35:41 AM PDT

    •  OK, I'll bite (10+ / 0-)

      He has explained number (1) - he said he didn't feel it important enough to waste time on, and he thought, while on live television in front of millions ofpeople, that it would look like a cheap shot and make them both look like they were squabbling.  At the time, it didn't feel like an important moment in the debate, and he figured the truth would come out anyway, as it did.

      In retrospect, he says, he probably should have jumped on him.

      (2) is complete crap.  He did not gay bait.  he pointed out, not so subtly, the basic hypocrisy in running as the number two on a ticket for a party that bashes gays and opposes gay rights, while having raised and supported a lesbian daughter.

      But thanks for the BushCo talking point.

      JRE 2008 "80% of republicans are democrats who don't know what's going on." - Bobby Kennedy, Jr.

      by DrFrankLives on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:54:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  this only works if ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nasarius, bergerc84

      You think being gay is somehow bad.  I believe the intent was to spotlight hypocrisy among Cheney's fans ... but I would have avoided it, in any event.

      •  No way (0+ / 0-)

        He was CLEARLY talking to the gay-haters.  He was not making the point that "Hey Cheney's not such a bad guy...he didn't disown his daughter for being gay.  He was speaking to the Gay bashers and that's what was so repellenta bout it.  And as for thinking that being called an absentee Senator wasn't important enough to respond to, then he has horrible polticial instincts.  He was pretty mediocre in the Dem debates too.  Remember his iditoic tak on the Howard Dean's Confederate Flag Remark?  "Let me tell you what the South doesn't need...you telling us how to live our lives."  WHAT?  What the hell does that have to do with anything?  Edwards is a nice guy and a hell of a lawyer but he doesn't have the chops to be President.  And he let his ambition get the better of him in '04.  He should have kept that seat in the Dem column and built some real credentials.

        "The only difference between me and the Surrealists is that I am a Surrealist" S. Dali

        by SpiderStumbled22 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:25:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Your power over us is waning (5+ / 0-)

    Dear Leader of the Kos Kult. I believe you favor Warner, but he is not in the top three. Your rabid lambs are defying you.  It can only mean one thing: implosion. /snark

    I find it somewhat amusing No Freaking Clue beats Hillary Clinton. I've never heard of No Freaking Clue.  What is his/her platform?

    "As you get older, you get less willing to buy the latest version of reality." Leonard Cohen

    by mentaldebris on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:35:57 AM PDT

  •  Edwards becomes even more interesting (0+ / 0-)

    If it appears the Republicans are forced to go outside Washington (Huckabee, for instance) - suddenly his lack of Nat. Security experience isn't an issue.

    However, I think it would be wise for Edwards, if he is interested, to get out and do some worldwide trips- find some international issue to attach to (maybe through the Carter Center?)

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:36:10 AM PDT

    •  i still think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geotpf, TheJohnny

      he's just too inexperienced. 6 years as a senator with no executive experience...i dont know...just doesn't cut it for me.

      # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
      http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:38:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but then LQQK @ dumya!? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII, mbair, aelurophile

        I dunno. Might be a pipedream ... but, tie Edwards to Clark and you might have a team.

        National security ... AND a fight FOR the middle/poor class.  (And how 'bout... tWo Honest Guys!)  ...and a big pull from the south.
        (...a lot'a plusses there.)

        ~A govt lobbied, campaigned and selected by corporation... is good for corporation. Bad for people.~

        by Orj ozeppi on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:53:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I really like that ticket (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MeanBoneII, Orj ozeppi

          but we can't get there if we require FP experience to nominate. That's a big sticking point and I hope people look through the primaries to a general this time. We put up a guy that was good on paper, but rough with selling the message. Even Jon Stewart makes fun of Kerry and his boring delivery style.

          A resume is just a piece of paper.

    •  He's already (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MeanBoneII, mbair, panicbean, machka

      joined Jack Kemp in a study about Russia, and penned an op/ed last week with him on Russian democracy.

      •  posted something above (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII, machka

        They're co-chairs on the task Force for Russia.

        As you say they eecently they wrote an op-ed for the G8, but they also published something last march which was more extensive. Edwards and Kemp appeared on MTP at that time, I think Russert had them on to discuss the report.

    •  he's doing this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MeanBoneII, mbair, bergerc84

      he cochairs a commission on relations with Russia and the former Soviet Bloc with Jack Kemp.  He's made several trips to Russia, met with Putin, etc.

      And let's all thanks FleetAdmiralJ for the Republican talking point.  Take it away J.  "not enough experience...waaaaaaa"

      JRE 2008 "80% of republicans are democrats who don't know what's going on." - Bobby Kennedy, Jr.

      by DrFrankLives on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:58:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not a talking point. (0+ / 0-)

        It's a legitimate concern. When you're running up against a candidate with some 2 decades in the Senate, experience matters. When you're running a country, ecperience matters. I think we learned that over the past six years.

        •  we ran a candidate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MeanBoneII, nasarius

          with two decades in the Senate.  That's two decades of votes to hold against someone.

          And who do the Republicans have with more "experience" in executive office?  

          Giuliani?  One cross-dressing picture and the contents of his divorce file will do him in.

          Pataki?  HA

          Allen?  Four years in which he destroyed the budget of the Commonwealth of Virginia?  Ok, bring it on.

          THe only one I worry about is Mitt Romney.

          JRE 2008 "80% of republicans are democrats who don't know what's going on." - Bobby Kennedy, Jr.

          by DrFrankLives on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:17:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't underestimate Rudy (0+ / 0-)

            The guy won re-election in an overwhelmingly Democratic city -- and he did it overwhelmingly.  

            Rudy could potentially win states in a general election that other GOP candidates couldn't even dream of taking.

            And while I know the prevailing wisdom is that Rudy could never win the GOP nomination, given the conservative base -- that prevailing wisdom is a heaving load of crap.  We could easily be looking at a situation where 10 or more viable Republicans participate in Iowa, NH, and perhaps beyond.   If Rudy could win 20 or 25% in those states, that could be enough for first place.  And guess what -- check out the polls, he's in that neighborhood. And with a compressed primary schedule, that early momentum is critical.

            My two cents -- if Rudy runs and McCain doesn't, Rudy wins the GOP nomination easily (as the only moderate/liberal among a gaggle of vote-splitting conservatives).  If McCain runs, it's a lot tougher, but I'd still put his chances as decent.  

        •  The real concern... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MeanBoneII, mbair, machka, aelurophile

          The real concern is having all of that "experience" picked apart in attacks on the candidate, which the right-wing noise machine has proven they're ready and willing to do time and time again.

          You can't have all of those votes sitting there, waiting to be distorted.

          And I think there's a disconnect going on here.  "Experience" is not exclusively tied to work done inside the beltway.  Sure, if Edwards ends up winning, he'd be relying on his cabinet for some assistance with congressional relations and foreign policy, but I don't buy for one minute the notion that Edwards isn't qualified simply because the majority of the accomplishments he has were not completed in D.C.

          "Whenever someone says he's going to save your soul, keep a tight grip on your wallet."

          by bergerc84 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:53:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  roger that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MeanBoneII, edavis, machka, aelurophile

      I think he got your memo:

      Council on Foreign Relations: Russia's Wrong Direction co-chairs, John Edwards and Jack Kemp, March 2006.

      Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

      Brussels Forum keynote address: John Edwards, April 2006.

      Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

      Edwards in India Hindustan Times, November 2005.

      Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    •  He has... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      machka

      Check out his web site:

      http://oneamericacommittee.com/...

    •  He has been studying (0+ / 0-)

      He worked with Kemp on the U.S. foriegn relations with Russia Taskforce, he spoke at the Brussels Forum, went to Israel two months ago and met with the Prime Minister and Defense Minister to talk about peace between the Palestinians and Israelis....that obviously had no affect on the situation. He also went to the UAE to encourage the rich investors to invest in poor areas of the middle east. He's going to school. As for Carter, they just did a podcast together for his website, go to oneamericacommittee.com

  •  Has anyone noticed? (0+ / 0-)
      There is one Democrat with over a decade of executive experience, a real understanding of the net roots, with passion and competence who has an approval rate of 90%.  Tell me again why he is unelectable?

    Everybody eats, nobody hits.

    by upperleftedge on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:36:49 AM PDT

    •  errr who are we talking about? (0+ / 0-)

      # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
      http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:39:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  oh (0+ / 0-)

          "YYYEEEEEAAAAAAARRRRGGHHHHH!" is the answer to his question then.

          # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
          http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:41:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  YYYYEEEAAAARRRGGGHHH (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            andydoubtless

            sums up the man's passion and energy for change in a good way.... I watched that speech from the his Manchester, NH HQ with over 250 and all of us were floored by what a great speech that was. Get this man back into the game, he is better than the DNC...

            •  actually (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lieberdem

              i saw the speech too and knew two thigns

              1. dean was done
              1. i knew i wouldn't vote for him in the primary if he was still around (well, i wasn't intending to anyway, but...)

              # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
              http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:47:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                esquimaux

                i saw the speech replayed by the media the next day and i knew two things as well

                1. people like you ruined howard dean because you are afraid of passion and emotion (you think shouting is taboo? why dont you look back into our history to the 1850s when the US Senate was the greatest orating body in the world and shouting was commonplace. would you have told daniel webster his career was done for shouting about slavery?)
                1. the media in this country did not want dean from the start because, like you, they feared a man who could inspire masses of people with a message that didnt rely on $$ or power, two things mass media loves.
          •  Yep (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound, Liberal Lurker, rhatermike
            That's what gets me.  He was destroyed by the media because he showed some balls.  Something Democrats are accused on not having.  Then we jump on the band wagon and put the label on him that the media handed us. YYEEEEAAUGGH my ass!  What about civil unions, balanced budget, health care for all.  Are we just as hung up on image as the Republicans?  What about substance? Yes, he has a job and he is doing it well, but our party and our country needs a leader.  I want to shove that scream down their throats and make them swallow.  I want to say this is our candidate warts and all.  Maybe the reason there isn't much leadership in the Democratic party is that there isn't much loyalty in the Democratic party.  When I hire a guy to build my house I don't care if everybody likes him, I don't care what he looks like, I hire he because he knows how to build houses. But I guess that is just me most people go for the builder with the biggest ad in the yellow  pages.  I've seen their houses, not good. I'm afraid too many people have bought into the media myth that image is more imortant than content and that's why we have so many empty suits in Washington.  I just think we are being told who we can vote for by the media and I don't like it.  Our house is divided and in desperate need of repair.  I would like to hire someone who has proven that he knows how to do the job.  Is that so wrong?

            Everybody eats, nobody hits.

            by upperleftedge on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:58:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  that's because he's not running for anything. (5+ / 0-)

      Dean is doing wonderfully where he is.  I really don't think he could be president, and I say this as an early Deaniac, and the only political donations I've made have been to either Howard Dean or to the DNC in response to a Howard Dean request.

  •  The results for Rahm ad Schumer are disappointing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FleetAdmiralJ, davybaby

    Honestly, both the DCCC and DSCC have deen doing fantastic work since '04. They haven't always made wise choices, and have sometimes gone with the conventional wisdom - Hackett/Brown and Cengelis/Duckworth come to mind - but overall, both of these men have done a sterling job. The muddled Lieberman message shouldn't detract from a very solid record.

    Meanwhile, Howard Dean, though I love the guy and his 50-state strategy, is the only party committee head to  fall behind his R counterparts in fundraising.

    So by strict performance criteria, really, I don't understand these results.

  •  How About Using Condorcet? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkfp2004, ourprez08

    Kos,

    How about doing the next 2008 poll with a Condorcet method?  The system takes into account second and third choices etc. in order to choose the candidate that is really preferred by most people.  

    We should have a long term goal to institute this voting method to choose our candidates in official democratic primaries.  We would choose much better candidates with better chances of winning the general election.

    In our winner takes all system, it is possible for the best candidate to come in last place.  Suppose in an election with three candidates A, B, and C; everybody likes candidate B.  Almost half like A slightly better, but hate C.  The other half like C slightly better than B, but hate A.  Winner takes all will choose a candidate hated by almost half the electorate.  The one liked by everyone comes in last.  This scenario can become much worse the more candidates there are.  Imagine ten candidates in a race.  The worst can win with 10%+1 of the vote even if he is the least favorite of the 10 for the other 90% of the population.  Why would you want a system that allows someone hated by 90% of the voters hate to win?

    The system is very easy to plug votes into a database and have a spreadsheet programmed to automatically tally the results.  Here is a link to an article about why and how the Free State Project decided to use Simple Condorcet instead of Cumulative Count to choose which state to move to.

  •  Random quote (6+ / 0-)

    has no buisness being on this thread, but it's too funny to wait for an open one.  Check out the cover of politicalwire.

    "I used to be a Republican...before they lost their minds."

    -- NBA superstar Charles Barkley, quoted by the New York Post.

    It sucks living next door to Richard Nixon.

    by jkfp2004 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:43:34 AM PDT

  •  One reason why I like JRE (7+ / 0-)

    In his 60 Minutes interview during the primaries, Kroft (or whoever) was asking him, "do you really think you can win?  Is you "Two Americas" thing real?".  Edwards make it clear that this fight wasn't about him or his vanity.  It was about helping the kind of people who he grew up around, regular folks who are just living their lives and getting run over by the powers in DC.

    In 2003, the NC Dems wanted Edwards to announce whether or not he'd seek re-election.  He was at maybe a 2 percert in Iowa and a negative 5 in NH, but he said he wasn't going to run for relection.  Very different from what Joementum did in 2000.  The passion hasn't been squeezed out of him like so many nat'l Dems.

    Political dispatches with a view of the Market Pike Place Politics

    by Belltowner on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:44:26 AM PDT

  •  Why don't the columns add up to 100%? (0+ / 0-)

    I get

    94    94    97    95    94    93    92    94

    what data are we leaving out here?  We've got Other and No Freakin' Clue covered.  

  •  We've got great people! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miss Blue

    It pleases me to no end that I'd be overjoyed to have any of these top 4 as our nominee.

    Our Party has great people!

    (-8.88/-7.64) Flirting with Feingold, Pining for Gore!

    by Joshua Lyman on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:45:15 AM PDT

  •  Points (0+ / 0-)

    Assigning 4 points for first place, 3 for 2nd, 2 for 3rd, and 1 for fourth place in the straw poll the resuts over the past year are:

    Clark 28pts
    Feingold 24pts
    Edwards 12pts
    Warner 9pts
    No Freakin Clue 5pts

    Clinton 5pts
    •  Had Gore been (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alnc, Alice Marshall

      included, I think he would have won all the polls (at least since September, when he romped home with 48%. In May, he got 68%).

      He would have got around 40 points (assuming the other ordering remained the same, and giving 5 points for 1st place)

      •  but... (0+ / 0-)

        he wasn't.

        "Whenever someone says he's going to save your soul, keep a tight grip on your wallet."

        by bergerc84 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:04:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He smoked the polls whenever he WAS included (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alice Marshall

          He smoked the polls whenever he WAS included

          1. Daily Kos Poll May/June 2006: Gore 68%, Feingold 15%, Clark 4%, Hillary < 1%
          1. Daily Kos Poll Sep 2005: Gore: 48%, Clark 24%, Feingold/Edwards: 8% each.
          •  Alright, that's fine.. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MeanBoneII

            Point taken.  I'm just saying, I think 3/4 of the DailyKos Community knows you support him, knows you wanted him included, and believes you that had he been included, he would have done very well.

            But he wasn't included this time.  Thus, we have the results that we do.

            And this is my curiosity -- I'm not trying to attack you, I just honestly want to know -- what makes you believe he's going to run?

            I'm not opposed to Gore; Edwards is just my favorite right now.

            "Whenever someone says he's going to save your soul, keep a tight grip on your wallet."

            by bergerc84 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:45:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here is one reason (0+ / 0-)

              The single most important justification, considering all the pros and cons, that one can give for him potentially running (or considering running) comes from this: a presidential campaign is the most powerful way to get the message about Global Warming across to Americans, because it opens up an audience of literally 100-300 million people (in comparison, only 2-5 million Americans will have seen the movie, from the movie and the DVD).

              A couple of other compelling reasons for why Gore would be a great President.

              Gore knows quite a bit about building a successful economy from his work with Clinton during the 90s. That experience is also called for in the next administration because of the dilapidated state that he/she will find the economy when assuming the office.

              Finally, he has the national and international stature to mend fences on the foreign policy front after the wreckage done and being done by Cheney and Co.

              Gore would have legitimacy in changing the direction on foreign policy and matters of war and peace precisely because he opposed the Iraq invasion strongly and well in the beginning.

              •  Yes, but.. (0+ / 0-)

                That did not answer my question.  I'm interested in knowing what makes you think he's going to run.  There are many people on this site that believe he will not run, even if they would support him.

                So why do you think he is going to run?  You don't have to justify his candidacy, I just want to know why you believe he's going to do it.

                I think global warming could be a reason.  Like you mentioned, with it being a key piece of a platform, it would get a lot of press.  But what else?

                "Whenever someone says he's going to save your soul, keep a tight grip on your wallet."

                by bergerc84 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 04:17:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am (0+ / 0-)

                  fairly perceptive, but don't actually have a crystal ball sitting in front of me :)

                  First off, I have never assertively stated that Gore will definitely run.

                  I'm interested in knowing what makes you think he's going to run.

                  Neither possibility is written in stone.

                  If enough people ask him to run, and the prospects of winning the nomination are decent, then I conjecture that Gore will enter the race.

                  There are many people on this site that believe he will not run, even if they would support him.

                  So why do you think he is going to run?  You don't have to justify his candidacy, I just want to know why you believe he's going to do it.

                  They're reaching their opinion based on their reflection upon what he said, but the key is that he hasn't ruled out a run.

                  I think global warming could be a reason.  Like you mentioned, with it being a key piece of a platform, it would get a lot of press.  But what else?

                  Ambition Vs Aspiration

                  The most basic question to ask is: Why shouldn't it be the case Al Gore may have a natural aspiration to be President?

                  After all, he loves his country and his planet, has tremendous vision, and the best place to effectuate that vision is from the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

                  I don't think that he has too much personal ambition left in him, but aspiration is different from ambition. A continued aspiration to leave the nation and the world better (or in theory as good as it can be) than when he found it; that, I find in Al Gore, in great measure, and even more passionately so than in 2000.

                  I've already talked about the 2 other salient reasons besides global warming (economy and foreign policy/relations), both of which need someone with legitimate credentials on both fronts.

                  •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

                    Thank you very much.  I just wanted to hear your take on it.

                    And I want to apologize regarding a previous reply I made in regard to you attacking Edwards -- you certainly were not "attacking" him there, but merely pointing out the facts.  Thanks for challenging me on that.

                    "Whenever someone says he's going to save your soul, keep a tight grip on your wallet."

                    by bergerc84 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 08:59:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  An unofficial/informal poll from yesterday (0+ / 0-)

            Today, who is your top 2008 choice?

            I haven't decided, stop asking until 2007  158 votes - 3 %
            Warner  129 votes - 2 %
            Vilsack  4 votes - 0 %
            Richardson  33 votes - 0 %
            Kerry  64 votes - 1 %

            Gore  2962 votes - 62 %

            Feingold  721 votes - 15 %
            Edwards  208 votes - 4 %
            Dodd  0 votes - 0 %
            Daschle  5 votes - 0 %
            H. Clinton  40 votes - 0 %
            Clark  364 votes - 7 %
            Biden  16 votes - 0 %
            Bayh  13 votes - 0 %
            Other  44 votes - 0 %

            4761 Total Votes

      •  best to forget Gore (0+ / 0-)

        If he turns around and decides to run, great. But he's repeatedly said that he won't, and I tend to believe him. Until he says otherwise, he's as much of a fantasy choice as Bill Clinton would be.

        Oh God, I haven't read your book; I'm sure it was divine
        Especially the part where you turned water into wine

        by nasarius on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:28:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It should be Edwards (6+ / 0-)

    He represents the core-values of the Democratic party.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:48:17 AM PDT

  •  Gore would have won every one of these (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alnc, NeuvoLiberal

    had he been included.

    Gore Portal

  •  Edwards the strongest? Really? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr X, andydoubtless

    Yes, he almost doubled his percent from last month.  But he remains in first place, with only 40% of the vote of the straw poll winner.  What is this blind spot Kos has for Feingold's strength among the grassroots?

  •  I still like Clark or Gore (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty the playwright

    I pretty much agree with Feingold (even sent him money once) but I have to stick with my first choices.  However the primaries will decide the final result and according to polls I've seen, Hillary has a fairly solid lead.  It is a very long way to the primaries yet! Too early to tell how this will go.  But I will support any Democrat who is the nominee over any Republican so far named.

  •  uhh... Edwards is the favorite, huh? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andydoubtless

    Care to explain this rather inane-seeming statement?  Feingold is clearly the dominant favorite.  You saying Edwards is the favorite when he simply has a slight bounce -- this is one of those things that makes you go, "hmm."

    •  i believe he is looking at trends (0+ / 0-)

      Feingold has lost 10pts in the last two polls.

      # Members: 96,326 (as of 10:00pm 7/13). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 5, 2006
      http://www.bloggingintheblue.com

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:00:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not really (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MattBellamy, MeanBoneII, mbair, machka

      Nah, I can agree with Kos's statement.  While Feingold certainly has his support here, he's lost quite a bit of ground in the past few months.

      Meanwhile Edwards not only doubled his support here, he has strong labor support, he's doing extremely well in Iowa -- building on support that has carried over from the 2004 primary, and he's picking and choosing his platforms for publicity.  He's playing it smartly, and he's doing pretty damn well.

      "Whenever someone says he's going to save your soul, keep a tight grip on your wallet."

      by bergerc84 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:03:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        machka

        Edwards also has a golden ticket as a trial lawyer to bring in the cash when he needs it. He's not raising money at the moment for his PAC that is.

        He's raised about 6.5 million for lower tier candidates across the country, but not the traditional way. Usually these pols use their PACs to raise money and then cut checks to others, Edwards goes out in person and headlines these rubber chicken dinners. He also does free events anywhere a union picks a fight or in any state with a wage hike bill on the ballot.

        His PAC is nearly broke. They're just maintaining to keep up with minimum staff and travel costs.

        Back in 2004 labor was split, Gephardt got some, Dean got SEIU and Kerry got AFL-CIO. When the time comes who is labor gonna go with? I think it will be Edwards. So he'll have money and ground troops when he needs them. No one can compete with Hillary on money, so I conceed that.

        As far as Feingold, I think some of his support is waning because he hasn't done anything big recently, but that could all change with one press conference. I think Feingold has hard core support both in the blogosphere and on the ground. With or without money I see him as a player in '08.

    •  Favorite for the actual nomination. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MattBellamy, mbair, machka

      Edwards has some huge advantages for winning the nomination that Feingold and most other candidates lack -- name recognition and broad favorability among others.

      His nice-guy reputation and focus on helping the poor also will make it hard for the trailing candidates to attack him.

      •  Family (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII

        Edwards also has a "morally upright" family, and (I know how horrendous this sounds) his son's death makes them further difficult to attack.

        The Rethugs love to chase those "family values," but between McCain's affairs, Guiliani's affairs and NASTY divorce, and Gingrich's divorces, they'll have a tough time finding a candidate with as squeaky-clean of a personal life as Edwards.

        •  The biography is a huge plus for Edwards. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          machka

          And these thing matter to the swing voters who decide elections. You hit the nail on the head.

        •  She's coming back... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MeanBoneII, davybaby, machka

          Due out in September...


          Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
          Saving Graces: Table of Contents
          Chapter One: Kenosha
          Chapter Two: Jacksonville
          Chapter Three: Iwakuni
          Chapter Four: Zama
          Chapter Five: Chapel Hill
          Chapter Six: Raleigh
          Chapter Seven: Raleigh and Not Raleigh
          Chapter Eight: Raleigh, Breathing Again
          Chapter Nine: Washington and the Senate
          Chapter Ten: America, The Primaries: The Windup
          Chapter Eleven: Ameica, The Primaries: The Pitch
          Chapter Twelve: America, The General Election: In the Starting Blocks
          Chapter Thirteen: America, The General: The Race
          Chapter Fourteen: Washington: The Hospital
          Chapter Fifteen: Home




          YouTube video clip: Elizabeth Edwards on Countdown with KO, part 1

    •  Kos is talking about (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MattBellamy, MeanBoneII, mbair, machka

      more than the results of this poll.

      If you combine this with Edwards's lead in Iowa, his near 100% name recognition and over 70% favorable rating, you've got yourself a plausible frontruner.

      Although adding money into the equation unfortunatley has to put Hillary at the top.

      [shudder]

      JRE 2008 "80% of republicans are democrats who don't know what's going on." - Bobby Kennedy, Jr.

      by DrFrankLives on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:05:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  'slight bounce' is a fly ball to left center (0+ / 0-)

      Edwards is on a roll.

  •  Gimme Gore (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alnc, Alice Marshall, NeuvoLiberal, Mr X

    Please have the man run.  Although I worry that if he did jump in the race, his poll numbers would drop.  People seem to like candidates better when they have no outward ambition, which makes no sense because why would you want a president who didn't really want the job?

    In any case, I continue to hope he does run.  If not, I'm not sure who I like best.

  •  Don't get me wrong (0+ / 0-)

    Don't get me wrong, Markos, but I think this does prove that there is a extreme majority of far left people here at DailyKos.

    I wonder just what kind of sample you can have with numbers like this.

    •  LOL! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mang glider

      extreme majority of far left people here at DailyKos.

      Extreme? Far left? You gotta be kidding me. There's nobody anywhere in these polls who is even close to far left.

      This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

      by Mr X on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 01:27:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The numbers (0+ / 0-)

        No way Feingold is in the lead(a huge lead), Dean get's 90% and Emanuel get's a high disapproval if there is no a far left majority here.

        That's easy to see.

        I didn't say the politicians listed were far left.

        And the point was, the polls don't mean anything with that type of sample.

        •  How can You Possibly Conclude (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mang glider

          that the voters in a poll are far left if you say that none of the poll choices is far left?

          Your conclusion has no basis.

          This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

          by Mr X on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 01:51:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Semantics (0+ / 0-)
            Semantics is a game for the far left and the far right.

            Common sense rules with regular liberals and moderates.

            •  'Semantics' aside (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mang glider

              There's a difference between being highly partisan and being "far left" - its a difference between tone and ideas.  To consider pro-life Harry Reid "far left" isn't a question of semantics but complete and utter lunacy.

              In using the term "far left" to describe Kossacks, you are either a huge troll or you completely misunderstand politics.  You're the type of guy who confuses McCain as a moderate because he's bipartisan, or think that "nice guys" are by definition centrist.  It takes a strong degree of political tone deafness to genuinely think as you are right now, which is why I think troll is the more likely answer.

              •  You can (0+ / 0-)
                You can think what you want, and use whatever labels you choose. Like I said, it's semantics.

                Being Partisan has nothing to do with it. All of the politicians in that poll were DEMOCRATS. How could I possibly mean 'partisan'? LMFAO!

                You don't have to be a genius to see that. Which is even more surprising as I read your post. Which was a lot of BS about nothing.

                'Far left', to me, equals those liberals that are so liberal that they believe disagreeing with them or their 'hero's is an act of treason to the party.

                Just like the 'far right' to me are those robotic neocons that worship Bush and his agenda and disagreeing with him equals treason against the Country. You are two sides of the same coin.

                As far as calling me a troll, all you need to do is search my posts. I have read and posted, occasionally, on Kos since the beginning. I love having current articles disseminated and commented on.

                But I will speak my mind when I chose. And if you don't like it, instead of accusing me of being a troll, come up with an intelligent response or ignore me.

                All you have done with your post is accuse me of being a troll. The 'partisanship' card you threw was more than a little silly. All anyone has to do is realize that all of those political figures were ALL Democrats.

                Geez.....

                •  the far left (0+ / 0-)

                  doesn't vote for democrats.  Dean is not liberal and only some of his supporters are.  Russ is only liberal, hardly far left and only some of his supporters are liberal.  Edwards is hardly liberal and he is up there on the poll too.

                  Your rational sucks.

                  •  It only sucks (0+ / 0-)

                    It only sucks to people not capable of understanding it.

                    Sorry.

                    Anyone looking at those polls would only need an ounce of common sense and a little intelligence to see that.

                    And as I described already, I give the definition of 'far left' to people that are the alternates of the 'far right', or the Rush Limbuagh, neo-cons that currently control the Republican Party.

                    If you don't like that definition, too bad. I have always liked dailykos and have it as one of the pages I leave open the whole time I am on the PC. I've seen this place become home to a lot of what I call the far laeft, and now I see the anti-semites are growing by large numbers.

                    And that is sad to me.

        •  how does Dean's 90% approval rating (0+ / 0-)

          make you conclude that people here are far left? Dean is not a liberal.

          •  LMFAO! (0+ / 0-)
            Only in the World where Cynthia McKinney is a good Democrat and no Democrat Presidentials candiates are liberal(TeresaInPa's world) is Dean not a liberal.

            I've read your comments here, and you are definately one of the problems Democrats have. People like you popping up and exposing yourselves as the loons you are only hurts the Democrats.

            Then again, maybe that's your job and you are just a neocon shill sent over here to make Kos look stupid.

      •  it was CLASS WAR, but it is already lost (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        santos

        middle class disappearing, dems are
        pro-capitalistic and CLASS WAR already
        lost. Laws written by pro-capitalistic
        lobbyists, taxes used to move money
        from middle class to riches, good jobs
        are disapearing. Unions crashed (while
        corporations are global), education is
        too expensive (degree means you
        graduating with debt), housing
        is not affordable and medical system is
        not unversally accessible. And minimum
        wage is not raised for 9+ years while
        dollar lost at least 40% of its value.
        Other side won!

  •  Please include the 'don't knows' :) (0+ / 0-)

    Kos,

    Thanks, as always, for running these. Just a brief request: for me, and probably for others, the "don't know" response to the question is actually in lieu of a substantive response that means something like "in between/ both approve and disapprove." I'm a survey researcher and I always like to see those options clearly laid out (although some survey research prefer forcing a more clear-cut opinion). For me, anyway, I approve of some stuff regarding Schumer, Emanuel and Pelosi, but disapprove of other things. Thus, it's not that I "don't know," but rather that my opinion on them is more complicated than that. For Emanuel in particular, for example, I strongly approve of the very serious and concerted effort he is making to re-take the House, but strongly disapprove of his unprofessional and self-defeating and very public rantings directed at Howard Dean.

    You might even consider replacing the "don't know" response with "don't know/ in between/ both approve and disapprove" or something like that. But in lieu of that, just including the "don't knows" gets at some of that. It's real information -- trust me! :)

    In a mountain half-way between Reno and Rome We have a machine in a plexiglass dome Which listens and looks into everyone's home. -- Theodore Seuss Geisel

    by JoelBloom on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:05:56 PM PDT

  •  I wonder what casued the decline of (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary's support from 10 do to 2%?

    Did people change their minds or did the Hillary supporters stop visiting Dkos?

  •  Edwards -- Once more (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MeanBoneII, mbair, bergerc84, machka

    As I've said ad nauseum, he's the most electable progressive in the field.  Feingold is more progressive, but he won't get elected.  Clinton is not progressive and can't get elected.  

    The Republicans. The party of fear and smear.

    by Paleo on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:09:33 PM PDT

    •  By what standard is Clinton less progressive (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NeuvoLiberal

      than Edwards?

      Because Clinton has a significantly better voting record than Edwards  during the 107th Congress (when they were both there full-time)

      Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:18:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clinton (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mbair

        Trade for one.  Plus, Edwards has a generally populist economic outlook, while Clinton lives to please Bob Rubin.

        Despite his vote of the IWR, Edwards is not the flaming neo-con when it comes to foreign policy that Clinton is.

        The Republicans. The party of fear and smear.

        by Paleo on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:30:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Having a 'populist outlook' (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NeuvoLiberal, DemocraticLuntz

          and actually voting as a populist or liberal or lefty or whatever, is different.

          Edwards was considered liberal in 2003, partly because he'd missed a lot of votes.

          "As for Edwards, he was the fourth most liberal in 2003. But he was 40th in 2002, 35th in 2001, 19th in 2000, and 31st in 1999, his first year in the Senate." - http://gadflyer.com/...

        •  On Trade: Hillary and Edwards are about the same (3+ / 0-)

          Hillary Clinton on Free Trade

          Click here for 9 full quotes on Free Trade OR other political leaders on Free Trade.

             * Globalization should not substitute for humanization. (Jun 1999)
               China
             * Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights. (Oct 2000)

             * Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)

             * Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
             * Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
             * Voted NO on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
             * Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
             * Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
             * Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

          John Edwards on Free Trade

          Click here for 15 full quotes on Free Trade OR other candidates on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade.

             * Renegotiate NAFTA rather than cancel it. (Feb 2004)
             * Require labor and environmental standards plus right-to-know. (Jan 2004)
             * Against NAFTA, against Chile trade, against Singapore trade. (Jan 2004)
             * Level the playing field for American workers. (Nov 2003)
             * I supported steel tariffs, but now ease off. (Sep 2003)
             * National venture capital fund for those hurt by trade. (Sep 2003)
             * Against Fast Track--not enough for US workers. (Jul 2003)
             * Voted NO on establishing a free trade agreement between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
             * Voted NO on establishing a free trade agreement between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
             * Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
             * Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
             * Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
             * Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000) ((PNTR is the same as MFN))

             * Voted NO on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
             * Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

          Notes:

          1. Edwards was not serving in congress to have opposed NAFTA in any serious way (he say that he "opposed NAFTA", but I haven't seen any publichsed record of him opposing it in 1993, when it was passed, even in an unofficial manner). He also only called for renegotiating NAFTA in 2004, and not for cancelling it. Majority of Democrats tend to take that position in the interests of ensuring labor/environmental protections.
          1. Edwards left the senate by the time CAFTA was voted on (2005), so no official record on that either. He may have taken a position against it. Hillary actually voted against it.

          ---

          Despite his vote of the IWR, Edwards is not the flaming neo-con when it comes to foreign policy that Clinton is.

          On the war, Edwards' involvement in siding and supporting the invasion, is worse than Hillary's (for starters, she only voted for the IWR, Edwards co-sponsored IWR and promoted it in a speech before the vote).

          •  For Gore or Against Edwards? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MeanBoneII

            If you took the time you spend attacking Edwards on here and dedicate it to getting Gore in the race, he might actually step in.

            "Whenever someone says he's going to save your soul, keep a tight grip on your wallet."

            by bergerc84 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 04:06:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Where is an attack in the above? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              andydoubtless, DemocraticLuntz

              Where is an attack in the above?

              I am setting the record straight (i.e. unspinning the spins that Edwards is "more progressive than Hillary", Hillary is a "raging neocon")

              You should give that advice to your friend "philgoblue" who spent a year attacking Gore, almost always speciously. And "Paleo" who just called Hillary a "raging Neocon": Despite his vote of the IWR, Edwards is not the flaming neo-con when it comes to foreign policy that Clinton is. by Paleo on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:30:06 PM PDT.

              The bad words I used on Edwards were the result of a year long provocation and aggravation by philgoblue's lies, deception, and spins. they were also said after exasperation from philgoblue's trolling.

              When unprovoked, I can express my opinions without any unnecessary negativity, and I never say anything without a concrete basis and links.

            •  No he won't. (0+ / 0-)

              When about half of the American people definitely won't vote for you, it's not exactly an invitation to run.

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                Things change:

                On 3/11/99:: Gore (42%), Bush (54%)

                On election day, Gore (48.4%), Bush (47.9%)

                --------

                Gore's unfavorables are currently around 44% (which is what matters, given that Gore's credentials are essentially unmatched among potential prospects), which isn't all that bad, considering what he's been through. A good campaign, rebutting the spins will dramatically improve his favorables.

                ----

                Edwards's national unfavorables are low because he got the name recognition from being on the ticket, but Kerry got stuck with the negatives from the attacks (may be Rove was saving Edwards for 2008). But, his NC state unfavorables on election day were: 46%.

                •  Unfavorables are different from ... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...definitely not vote for. If they were soft unfavorables, you might be able to turn them around, but these are hard unfavorables, and established over a long period of time.

                  You can't put the sour milk back in the fridge and expect it's going to be fresh tomorrow.

                  •  48.4% DID vote for Gore in 2000. (0+ / 0-)

                    48.4% DID vote for Gore in 2000.

                    He'll do much better next time around, because his passion is more telling, he is out from under Clinton's scandal-ridden shadow.

                    Therefore, that poll you quote is simply bogus.

                    Let's get him to run, then we'll architect a 60% win (with EC landslide) for him in Nov'08 (as was the case in most DKos polls).

                    With the power of his message, vision and record, yes, we can and will penetrate a broad crosssection of the electorate (only media bias stands in the way, but we'll have find ways to fix it, otherwise, any Democratic nominee will be bludgeoned to ignominy in fall'08, just like they did to Kerry as well in 2004). His ability to bring consensus is so evident from the fact that he wins both the DKos/alternet polls in a landslide as well as wins the recent TNR Poll. That, in essence is the Gore "Draft" Movement.

                    •  Keep hope alive. (0+ / 0-)

                      I admire your determination.

                    •  Gore has the best shot to win. Here is why (0+ / 0-)

                      Gore has the best shot to win. Here is why

                      1. the 48.4% that did vote for him in 2000 just can not vote for a war-supporting Republican in 2008 over Gore: exactly what kind of a moron would switch his vote to a Republican, pretty much most of whom supported the war gung-ho, over Gore. Granted Bush is a dummy, but his stupidness bonafides are better known now, than they were in 2000.
                      1. To exploit the war issue for electoral advantage (why not, given its far reaching consequences, and given the proclivity of the Republicans to continue to the same pattern), we need someone that opposed that invasion, and not people like Edwards who were fully supportive of the invasion (or Hillary, who voted for the IWR).
                      1. Mathematically, Gore has a very solid case for winning.

                      Off the bat, Gore would have 260 electoral college votes by keeping his 2000 states, and would only need 10 more from possibly these winnable (and won) states:  FL(27), NV(5), CO(9), MO(11), AR(6), TN(11), OH(20), WV(5), NH(4), VA(13)

                      10 ECVs can be obtained by any of the following 13 minimal combinations:

                      1. Any single state from among: FL, MO, TN, OH, VA
                      1. Any two state combination from among NV, CO, AR, WV, NH, other than NH+WV and NH+NV will also secure 10 or more ECVs (there are 8 such winning combinations)

                      Please see my diary.

                      A semi-decent campaign (besided overcomign media spins, which is a common factor for all Democrats) will win it for Gore, and a strong campaign stands to produce a landslide.

    •  rofl (0+ / 0-)

      Edwards is more progressive than Clinton?  Not hardly.

  •  Really think this relates to reality? (0+ / 0-)

    So Feingold is the leading candidate in Blogworld? Bullshit. One way to test whether a poll is valid or not is to see whether it represents reality. Anything that comes up with Feingold as the most popular choice among the online activists is nothing but pure nonsense.

    When will 'Kos give up this charade and poll for everyone who could be a candidate instead of just those who meet his purely arbitrary and biased criteria.

    Pipe dreams are not an exit strategy.

    by TrainWreck on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:19:31 PM PDT

  •  I like Edwards (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MeanBoneII, mbair, bergerc84, machka

    I'd vote for him more enthusiastically than I did for Gore or Kerry. I hope he doesn't peak too soon.

  •  I like the Kennedys (0+ / 0-)

    let's get Ted or Bobby, Jr. in '08!

  •  Bayh (0+ / 0-)

    It's a good thing for that trio of Bayh supporters... it must be hard work keeping him at 1 for seven straight polls.

    Is it me, or is 1 sounding even more pathetic than 0?

    "Whenever someone says he's going to save your soul, keep a tight grip on your wallet."

    by bergerc84 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:56:21 PM PDT

    •  Bayh (0+ / 0-)

      Bayh is a much more realistic candidate than Feingold could ever be.

      I didn't vote for him, but it seems to me that the pathetic thing is having Feingold 37% higher than Bayh. That shows how unrealistic this poll is.

      I would put Bayh 5th, behind Warner, Clark, Edwards and Biden.

  •  Weighted voting? (0+ / 0-)

    Would it be possible to make some kind of weighted voting?  If we could have a first choice and a second choice, or even a third choice, I wonder if it would change the voting.  I would vote for Richardson as a second choice.  I would like to support the notion of a Western candidate, a governor, and from a border state w/ Mexico.  I don't have a clue as to what the technical requirements for that would be but it would be nice to have that option for these early polls.

  •  Why not Richardson? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    santos

    I am looking at Richardson, he seems like a great candidate.  Was a Representative, a diplomat, a cabinet Secretary, a Governor, of a trending blue swing state.  Plus he has diplomatic experience with Iraq and North Korea, and the Cabinet he headed was energy.  I think he passed some sort of paper ballot law in New Mexico. It seems that the problems we have now are Iraq, North Korea, and energy.  And he is hispanic in an election the hispanics might be paying more attention than ever to. I have seen a few of these types of polls and someone usually says something like "Oh God, not Richardson, we have had enough of his problems".  Or "Richardson has a closet full of skeletons" or  something similar.  I am not sure if they are trolls, just really  don't like Richardson, are promoting their own candidate, etc.  So my question is: Is there something bad about Richardson? Does he have skeletons, etc. Any info would be appreciated.

    •  There are rumors (0+ / 0-)

      of a LOT of womanizing, but I can't personally speak to the truth of that.

    •  The thing is... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shawn, machka

      Richardson (and this is also true for Clark) are great candidates on paper, but just don't deliver AS A CANDIDATE.  Richardson's mumblings about energy at YKos (while well-intentioned) were semi-incoherent and certainly not inspiring.  The interesting thing is that we also have the flipside in the race, a candidate who's not that appealing from a credentials/resume perspective, but is incredible at firing up the room and campaigning (Edwards).  If only we had someone like Clinton who had both ends of the spectrum, but that's an exceedingly rare combo.

  •  Too bad Feingold sucks AIPAC's dick! (0+ / 0-)

    But don't most Democrats?

    •  I'm torn.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geotpf

      as to whether to troll rate for disrespect, (poorly) veiled anti-Semitism, and/or the user name, but come down on the "not quite" side.  It'd get a "1" under old ratings, though.

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        I dislike the current ratings.  There are a lot of comments that deserve 2's out there-so I don't rate.  Likewise, people are sometimes tempted to give Troll ratings (0's under the old system) for comments that deserve 2's.  I lost trusted user status for a comment that was supporting Israel and Feingold on this topic.  I could see somebody giving 2's to it, but it certainly didn't deserve a 0.

        I really wish Kos would bring the old system back-it was more Democratic and more useful.

  •  Al Gore for Secretary of State (0+ / 0-)

    He'd make an excellent president, but he just does not show himself off well. This a mind that belongs in the State Department and perhaps ultimately in the Supreme Court.

    •  'Showing off' should NOT be (0+ / 0-)

      a criterion for the presidency.

      •  I agree, but if you can't get your message across (0+ / 0-)

        you can't effectively lead. So far, Gore has been remarkably unable to get himself across. We'll see if he can be rehabilitated...

        •  quite ridiculous (0+ / 0-)
          1. Gore won in 2000 despite Clinton's scandal and impeachment dragging him down
          1. Whereever Gore goes and delivers a lecture, people are completely take by him
          1. he made a quite successful movie on global warming

          Gore is not glib like Clinton and others, but his sincerity and good intentions make him an excellent speaker.

          His oratory was powerfully displayed in many speeches, including his MLK Day Speech (video).

          •  Um... (0+ / 0-)

            Your first link dates from April 1999.  By November 2000, Clinton was an asset which Gore was running away from.  His refusual to embrace Clinton hurt him; Clinton's scandals were no longer an issue by November 2000.

            •  Clinton's personal unfavorables: 60% on elec. day (0+ / 0-)

              2000 election day exit polls
              Opinion of Clinton as a Person:

              36% favorable
              60% unfavorable

              Here is a large collection of 1999 polls, almost all of which show whopping deficits for Gore in 1999. The link I gave above (a Pew Center study) explains those double-digit deficits (remember that impeachment saga ended in Jan'99) as coming off of "Clinton Fatigue" (which was all too real).

              His refusual to embrace Clinton hurt him; Clinton's scandals were no longer an issue by November 2000.

              evidence indicates that Clinton was the #1 impeding factor in the 2000 campaign, starting with the intial 1999 polls, and even the low personal unfavorables on election day. Clinton did campaign in Arkansas for Gore, but it didn't help enough to win it.

              •  Here are excerpts from the Pew Study (0+ / 0-)

                Clinton Fatigue Undermines Gore Poll Standing

                Released: April 17, 1999

                Navigate this report
                Introduction and Summary
                Other Important Findings and Analyses
                Methodology
                Questionnaire

                Introduction and Summary

                Personal image problems and fallout from Clinton administration scandals are contributing to Al Gore's declining favorability ratings and his poor showing in early horse race polls. As the vice president has inched closer to the Democratic presidential nomination, his favorability ratings have fallen and he has slipped further behind GOP frontrunner George W. Bush in the horse race polls.

                While general election polls taken at this point in the cycle are more often wrong than right (see page 5), Gore's problems may be more enduring. Fewer Americans volunteer positive descriptions of Gore than did so just two years ago, and his favorability ratings are well below the 1987 ratings of Vice President Bush, who trailed the likely Democratic nominee at that time.

                ...

                Gore's Favorability Dips

                For the first time since the September 1997 allegations of wrongdoing in Gore's fund raising activities, his favorability ratings slipped below 50% this month. Today, 47% of the public holds a favorable opinion of Gore; 43% say their view is unfavorable. This is down significantly from December 1998, when 58% viewed Gore favorably and 33% unfavorably.

                There are studies on Clinton/scandal fatigue that came much closer to election too (i'll dig them up one of these days).

                Gore overcame double digit deficits, beginning with a strong convention, but one can not ignore the starting point.

              •  Yes, but they weren't re-electing Clinton (0+ / 0-)

                So the only number that mattered was his job approval, which was 57 favorable 41 unfavorable in that poll.

                •  Nope. CLinton fatigue was a personal factor (0+ / 0-)

                  that came from long and sordid scandal, trial and impeachment. The primary tool used by the Rove campaign was "Restoring honor and integrity" meme coupled with "Clinton fatigue".

                  I personally don't critique Clinton for the sexual escapades themselves, because that's between him and Hillary, but I do disapprove of his irresponsible behavior, considering the stakes, and knowing that the VRWC were out looking for a kill. Clearly, Clinton's behavior led to Gore trailing by whopping deficits all of 1999:

                  Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll

                         Date            Gore    Bush    Not sure

                  12/20-21/99 42 53 5
                  12/9-12/99 42 55 3
                  11/18-21/99 40 56 4
                  11/4-7/99 40 55 5
                  10/21-24/99 43 52 5
                  10/8-10/99 40 56 4
                  9/10-14/99 39 56 5
                  9/10-14/99 40 56 4
                  8/16-18/99 41 55 4
                  7/16-18/99 38 55 7
                  6/25-27/99 41 56 3
                  6/4-5/99 40 56 4
                  5/23-24/99 40 54 6
                  4/30 - 5/2/99 40 56 4
                  4/13-14/99 38 59 3
                  3/12-14/99 41 56 3
                  1/8-10/99 47 48 5
                  5/8-10/98 46 50 4

                  Readers are encouraged to visit this diary: Gore was not a weak candidate in 2000, by Infornific, Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:38:22 PM PDT

                •  nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                  Clinton fatigue was real.  People just didn't want to hear about it anymore.  Lots of swing voters voted for Bush just so they could "clean out the white house" of scandal.

            •  bullshit (0+ / 0-)

              Cinton was not an asset and Gore did not run away from him.

  •  Lamont for President (0+ / 0-)

    Is it too early to say this?

    :)

  •  Clinton is proving that DEMs are losers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, santos

    Bill will campaign for Joe, see
    http://www1.whdh.com/...

    and most of your candidates above, except
    Dean and of course Gore (both are not on
    your idiotic list) will follow Clinton!

    So only good candidate DEMs may have
    is a Gore, who is not on your list and
    his running mate should be Dean, who is
    NOT on your stupid list of losers.
    Go ahead, lose again! Just remember,
    that Bill is on the right of the center,
    and Hillary on the right from the Bill
    and Joe is on the right from the Hillary

  •  In fairness (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nocore

    We have to realize that in '04, we had a horrific Republican running for reelection. When we talk about the "Kerry states" we have to remember that a number of them were won by less than a hand full of points, such as MI, PA, WI, MN, NH. If there is someone like McCain at the top of the ticket, we are going to have to work harder to retain these states. I like Feingold and some of the other candidates, but I'm not sure how competitive they would be when push comes to shove. Feingold, would of course, win WI, but I don't see him making any waves in the Rockies or FL.

  •  Seriously, the big winner...? (0+ / 0-)

    "Seriously, the big winner in this edition of the poll is Edwards, who if I had to guess on a favorite at this very early point, I'd say it was him."

    Wha? How do you figure?
    I look at these results and see Feingold the favorite with Clark as #2. Am I reading it incorrectly?

  •  I voted for Feingold (0+ / 0-)

    The only thing is I would absolutely hate to lose him from the senate.  I really like Edwards as well, but he really doesn't have enough experience to be president.  I'd like him to be the v.p. pick or at least sign on to be in the cabinet pre-election.  Also, everyone on that list, including no freakin' clue, would be a better president than Bush.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site