Skip to main content

As we know, national polls of presidential primary candidates aren't meaningful as far as actual state primary results, but they shape coverage, perception of viability, and often fundraising.  

Washington Post/ABC News Poll,   1/16-1/19, MoE 3%, (12/11).

Democrats, including leaners:

Hillary Clinton 41 (39)
Barack Obama 17 (17)
John Edwards 11 (12)
Al Gore 10 (10)
John Kerry 8 (7)

Republicans, including leaners:

Rudy Giuliani 34 (34)
John McCain 27 (26)
Mitt Romney 9 (5)
Newt Gingrich 9 (12)

Head to head matchups, with the following caveat from kos:

Head-to-head polls invariably lead to those idiotic debates about who is more "electable". But this early, these sorts of polls are more a gauge of name recognition and latent popularity than the decisions based on year-long presidential campaigns. So I like the numbers as a baseline, but they have no bearing on the ultimate "electability" of any of these candidates. (And yeah, some of you will still make that argument as you promote your favorite, and there's nothing I can do about it.)

Giuliani 47
Clinton 49

Giuliani 49
Obama 45

McCain 45
Clinton 50

McCain 45
Obama 47

So this poll has things looking very stable over the past month.  It was done just as Obama announced, and finds no bounce for him from that.  Clinton, not having announced as the poll was done, edged up but within the margin of error.  She obviously continues to benefit from name recognition, as her favorable-unfavorable ratings show: 54% favorable, 44% unfavorable, with only 3% with no opinion while Giuliani, McCain, and Obama all have "no opinion" responses in double digits.  Only Giuliani has higher favorables, at 61%, and no one else's unfavorables are as high - McCain is second at 35%.  As the name recognition factor diminishes, the picture will probably change.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:38 PM PST.

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

  •  Let the Whining begin..n/t (6+ / 0-)

    "Clark is the only one I would trust with my son's life"

    by ParaHammer on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:41:10 PM PST

  •  Put me down as (9+ / 0-)

    almost certain that Giuliani isn't going to be the Republican nominee.  The religious right may swallow hard and go with McCain, even though they doubt he's really one of them.  But not Giuliani.

    Of course, I have no credentials or proof that I know what I'm talking about.

    •  I have as much chance as Giuliani (4+ / 0-)

      of winning the Republican nomination, and I'm a registered Democrat.  As I mentioned on a thread a few days ago, when Giuliani came to Baltimore last year to give a commencement address, our Cardinal cancelled his plans to give the benediction, and Giuliani was greeted by anti-abortion picketers when he arrived and exited the auditorium.  They had the usual signs - "Baby Murderer".

      According to Kevin Philips, half of Republican voters are fundies, so Giuliani starts with half of Republican voters hating him.

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:47:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Watch out for Huckabee and Brownback (4+ / 0-)

      Both are solidly conservative, especially on social issues(especially Brownback), but both come off as very mild and gentle. The GOP will probably not hold their nose and vote for Giuliani, McCain, or Romney, but instead coalesce around one of those two.

      There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed by what is right with America -Bill Clinton

      by jj32 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:48:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SadTexan, jj32

      Pryor was elected in AR over a "family values" hypocrit Tim Hutchinson (graduate of Bob Jones U).
      From wikipedia:

      During his term as Senator, Hutchinson divorced his wife of 29 years and then married a congressional aide with whom he had been having an affair. [1] When he was up for re-election, his Democratic opponent was his Senate predessesor David Pryor's son Mark. While not made an issue by Mark Pryor in the campaign, Hutchinson's divorce was well known to constituents and substantially hurt his popularity, and he lost to Mark Pryor by six percentage points.

      Even if no one mentions Guliani's personal life directly I think it will hurt him in red areas.

      "The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children." Bonhoeffer

      by LAMaestra on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:51:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I forsee a 'surge'... (5+ / 0-)

    ...once Gore annouces.

  •  I think Richardson is running for VP (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EdwardsRaysOfSunshine, Caldonia, TomP
  •  I know it's early (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaye

    and it's margin of error, but McCain's numbers are telling, I think. The fact that Clinton, and a relatively unknown Obama are leading against him probably shows how unpopular the surge is. And another pollster showed Edwards leading him too.  

    There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed by what is right with America -Bill Clinton

    by jj32 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:46:28 PM PST

  •  I am suprised at how well Obama is doing in (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, Sam I Am, VoteHarder, blue vertigo

    The head to head matchups with the GOP candidates.
    Why does rudy have all this glow?

    •  Because all republicans (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bodean, blueoasis

      are not bible thumping red necks.

      "She has the name recognition, the money, the glitz, she's got it all." Terry McAuliffe

      by naufragus on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:59:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Funny thing about Bible-thumpers (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SadTexan, Sam I Am, TomP

        is that they're not rednecks, if that put-down means poor whites.  They're college-graduate middle, upper-middle class, suburban and exurban families living in wealthy areas like Cobb and Gwinnett counties, just north of Atlanta.  Read this NYTimes magazine article for a description of modern "Bible-thumpers":

        Bible Thumpers

        From the article:

        The trouble with this theory of "status discontent" -- of conservative Christians as downwardly mobile rubes -- was that most of them were neither. On "most measures of backwardness," as the sociologist Christian Smith puts it, evangelicals look no different -- and frequently look more advanced -- than their counterparts who identify themselves as mainline or liberal Protestants, as Catholics or as nonreligious. Of all these groups, evangelicals are the least likely to have had only a high school education or less. They are more likely than liberals or the nonreligious to belong to the $50,000-and-above income bracket. And they are no more likely to live in rural areas than anyone else; the new centers of conservative Christianity, it turns out, are the prosperous suburbs in Midwestern states like Kansas and Oklahoma.

    •  I'm suspicious of Obama's numbers (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      EdwardsRaysOfSunshine, Lepanto, owl06

      I fear he could be Harold Forded;  that is, a significant enough segment of llikely voters could say yes to Obama in a poll (not wanting to express opinions that might be considered racist), but voting against him in the privacy of the voting booth.  And then the Repubs run a variation of the "Call me" ad.  

      On the other hand, maybe Americans will grow up enough in the next two years so that scenerio won't be possible.  But I wouldn't bet on it.  

      I really like Obama.  You can tell he's the one the Repubs are afraid of, because they're already digging up the dirt on him and broadcasting it.  

    •   Rudi Giuliani means ONE thing in the MidWest (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, blue vertigo, TomP

      and that is 9/11.

      None of the Reps out here knows he's "liberal" (unless they're against him).  No one out here knows about his personal life (unless they're against him).

      He came across as a hero.
      That's all anybody knows.

      "Willie, the children are over-stimulated. Remove all the colored chalk from the classrooms." --Principal Skinner

      by prodigal on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:40:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  In a hypothetical Giuliani-Clinton race... (4+ / 0-)

    I wonder what excuse Rudy would use to back out of that race this time after realizing he's facing certain defeat again???

  •  Hillary's support has to be soft. (6+ / 0-)

    Anyone with 40% "support" in Jan 2007 has to be relying on name recognition. Why would anyone be excited about her?

    Right now, I am not inclined to support anyone who plays the "we need a new politics" card. Anyone who says that automatically gets my BS meter up, which is why Obama's schtick of bipartisanship and inspiration gets on my nerves. Bipartisanship gave us Iraq, the Patriot Act, a right-wing Supreme Court, and every other fuck up over the past 6 years. Bipartisanship reminds of Lieberman, too.

    That's why Gore and Kerry are my top picks right now. I think both of them hate the GOP enough that they realize bipartisanship is just a euphemism for getting screwed.

    Hillary is a no-go and Obama's "inspiration" is just annoying.

    Where are you, Senator Feingold?

    by Basil on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:49:20 PM PST

    •  bipartisanship is how good bills get done (6+ / 0-)

      And there are plenty of good reasons to support Hillary Clinton (even though she's not my favorite), despite what the members of Daily Kos think.

      Chuck Schumer is not the enemy

      by AnnArborBlue on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:50:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever the virtues of... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, blue vertigo

        ...bipartisanship are, its vices are far greater. Partisanship would have given us a filibuster of the Iraq War Resolution.

        What has bipartisanship given us that is worth the Iraq War?

        As for Hillary, I don't HATE her, I just don't understand what she's done that makes her deserve to win.

        Where are you, Senator Feingold?

        by Basil on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:52:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  well she's been a good senator (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          milton333, Caldonia

          with an excellent voting record. She has a chance to be the first woman president, which will drive up her support. She's a Clinton, and people love the big dog. She's built one hell of a machine and raised massive amounts of money.

          Partisanship also would have prevented the New Deal, Welfare reform, Civil rights legislation. All of that was the result of compromise.

          Chuck Schumer is not the enemy

          by AnnArborBlue on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:55:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  President Clinton's approval is 61% today (3+ / 0-)

            AnnArborBlue, people do love President Clinton, I love President William Jefferson Clinton, and believe that he was the 2nd most successful US President of the last 100 years, after Roosevelt.  I also believe that, were President Clinton able to run again, he would win by AT LEAST 6 points.

            That said, Hillary is no President Clinton, and I do not believe that she can win a general election (of course, I would support her if she got the nomination).

            Hillary's unfavorable's in the WashPost poll are 44%.  President Clinton's are 37%.  Bill's favorable are 61% (tied with Rudy), while his unfavorables are 37%.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

            AnnArborBlue, many would probably consider me a Centrist Democrat.  I believe that President Clinton and Robert Rubin were godsends to this country.  But I don't like Hillary.

            Above all, I want to win.  My preferred candidate is General Clark, but I would accept Edwards, as I believe that he would be VERY competitive against any GOP nominee.

            Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

            by PatriciaVa on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:05:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Andrew Sullivan (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Caldonia

          posted some interesting more-or-less pro-Hillary thoughts on his blog yesterday.

          I'm not agreeing or disagreeing necessarily, but his perspective was interesting.

    •  Sigh, that's disappointing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sam I Am, prodigal, muffie

      There is good bipartisanship too, you know. Look at what happened in the House these past few weeks. Many of the bills of the Democratic agenda got significant GOP support. Bipartisanship can mean working on common sense(like Obama's and Coburn's work on the federal transparency bill), not caving into GOP  policies(like Lieberman).  

      There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed by what is right with America -Bill Clinton

      by jj32 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:53:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  OBAMA = Colossal Rookie n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    milton333, Basil, HillaryGuy, bten

    Ignorance is forgivable, because its curable; stupidity is not... The difference between ignorance and stupidity is in the desire to remain ignorant...

    by Andrew in MD on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:50:13 PM PST

  •  These numbers show (7+ / 0-)

    that John McCain is unelectable.

    McCain is the new Bush

    by George on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:50:42 PM PST

  •  McCain didn't win any converts today (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, jj32, Sam I Am, Lepanto, caroman

    He was on MTP and I've never seen a more spiritless delivery.  He seemed depressed.  His answeer to Dobson's comment that he could not support him was like, "Whater.  He's entitled to his opinion."  There was no passion, not strutting and preening.  No nothing.  
    I expect his numbers to drop.  

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:51:06 PM PST

    •  Is McCain Suicidal? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HillaryGuy, End game

      Someone needs to be watching this loser 24/7.  I have never seen a performance like that on network tv.  Can you imagine him as your pilot?

      •  that's sort of unkind (0+ / 0-)

        I despise McCain's views, but I think he is physically unwell. Perhaps even mentally unable to deal with some level of resurgent cancer which I think has been carefully hidden from the press.

        Not cool. Not cool at all.

        •  Not unkind (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis

          Ok, maybe the loser part was a bit harsh.  
          I don't think the problem is a physical one.  If he had cancer, he might expect the press to go a bit easier on him and the public to express sympathy.  
          No, I think he realizes that he is in a trap of his own making.  He tried to bluff on the surge and Bushies called him on it.  He sold out every one of his princples so that the Dobson crowd would like him.  And they don't.  Maybe he originally thought he could save his party by subverting it from the inside.  But now he realizes that what ails his party can't be fixed by giving into its base just so he could reach the top and effect change.  The party is too far gone and he is now in no position to fight for it.  He spent all of his capital by scuking up and turning his back on the moderates who once lauded him.  
          So, what's he going to do?  He can't go back.  The moderates are leary of him now.  And he can't go forward because the wingnuts never truly trusted him to begin with.  He's done for.  
          Sad, really but that's what you get when you do what is expedient rather than what is right.  

          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

          by goldberry on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:27:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well over on RedState and LGF (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            EdwardsRaysOfSunshine

            the fantasy is:
            Dems nominate Clinton
            GOP nominates Brownback or Huckabee
            McCain/Lieberman run as an independent ticket

            the fantasy spins out that the election goes to the House (because nobody gets EC majority) and House elects GOP because each state delegation gets a single vote and GOP has more states.

            "Willie, the children are over-stimulated. Remove all the colored chalk from the classrooms." --Principal Skinner

            by prodigal on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:47:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  calling out 'suicide watch' is not cool n/t (0+ / 0-)
            •  It was just hyperbole on the commenters part (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueoasis

              Sort of like when my mother used to say, "I'm going to wring your neck of you torment your sister again!"  I know she didn't really mean it.  It was simply more emphatic and to the point than, "Leave your sister alone or no dessert."

              -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

              by goldberry on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:09:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  McCain blew it. (0+ / 0-)

            He thought he would curry favor with the Repub primary voters by selling out the country and voting for the torture bill and the Military Commissions Act. The problem is that the evangelical/anti-choice wing doesn't care about either of these issues while the Libertarian wing (still considerable) detests both of these issues.    This sort of poor political judgement does not bode well for his candidacy.

            At least McCain is a poor liar and a worse panderer--I can't imagine anyone looking more insincere John McCain; he's so obviously false.  What the Dems really need to fear is a Romney candidacy, since he is both a good liar and a very effective panderer.

      •  seemed like he was drugged (0+ / 0-)
    •  They already did, no? (0+ / 0-)

      "Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth! It is wise and terrible."

      by section29 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:12:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Recall America's Mayor (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaye, prodigal

    Giuliani continues to lead the whole field, #1 Republican and #2 contender behind Hillary by only 2 points - though Giuliani hasn't even announced, or held office recently like Senator Clinton, or been featured on the corporate mass media that loves him.

    Even without those features, even with the Democratic surge measured in November 2006, Giuliani loses to Hillary by only 2 points. Even though Giuliani's got only 34% of Republicans, while Hillary's got 41% of Democrats - and "self-identified" Democrats are larger than Republicans, something like 37.5% to 33% of registered voters, while Democratic candidates got 11.6% more votes than Republicans last November. That means that lots more Democratic voters favor Giuliani than Republicans favor Hillary. Meanwhile, Giuliani's unfavorable is at only 29%, with Hillary's already at 44%: 50% higher unfavorable. With Get Out the Vote and disenfranchisement in 2008, to be the most powerful election ever (again), today's 2 point advantage to Hillary (well within the 3-point Margin of Error) means Giuliani is probably the current frontrunner.

    Deny it if you wish. You might even be right. But if you don't plan  how to defeat Giuliani right now, by telling everyone that he's a fascist, that NYC hated him by the time he was "America's Mayor", that his 9/11/2001 composure reflects his native soil: hell, he'll be your president in 2009, and probably thru 2016. Don't let it happen to you.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:55:13 PM PST

    •  Need to be realistic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kaye

      NYC didn't hate him -- certain portions of the electorate sure as hell did, but he still got re-elected overwhelmingly in a Democratic city.

      And if you ask New Yorkers today whether they'd rather have Dinkins or Giuliani as mayor, well... I suspect Rudy G would win about 10 to 1.

      Don't underestimate your opponent.

      •  Real Giuliani Time (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        milton333, blueoasis

        No, he was hated. I'm from here in NYC, and I can tell you that he was hated. Especially when he tried to use 9/11/2001 as a pretext to stay in office after the election "until the emergency is over".

        People look back at Giuliani's 1990s with deep nostalgia, both for the security and the prosperity. But we know he's a fascist. And most of us know he got lucky with the prosperity, which had absolutely nothing to do with him, and everything to do with Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and the Wall Street he came from harnessing the geeks making the Bubble. In fact, New Yorkers have all kinds of evidence Giuliani squandered the city's windfall. Nothing permanent to show for the long unprecedented incomes except an $8B "AirTrain" no one uses, with rotting infrastructure and the worst roads since carriages.

        Giuliani won't be running against Dinkins. An arbitrary comparison, anyway, especially since Dinkins sucked, governed through a serious recession, and hasn't been a factor in anything at all, anywhere, for over a decade and a half.

        Giuliani will be running against himself. Against Bernie Kerik, his mobby lieutenant, who Giuliani installed as founding director of Bush Iraq's police and border guards as "Interior Minister", whose ministry is the biggest catastrophe in Iraq. And against Michael "FEMA" Chertoff, who Giuliani installed to run Bush's DHS and FEMA as second choice after Kerik flamed out in the press. And against all Giuliani's support for Bush, despite their rivalry for inheriting the Republican Party, which public absence in the fight now looks strategic as the Party implodes on McCain.

        The whole point of my original post was that Democrats shouldn't underestimate Giuliani, who Ds always dismiss, despite his consistent leads in polls. But don't overestimate his vulnerability in his home base, NYC. Many, if not most, of us would rather drag his ass behind a car to dump in the NJ swamps than see him with any more power ever again.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:43:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I lived in NYC too, and... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sam I Am, blueoasis

          while he was hated by a percentage of people, it was a reasonably small one.  And a teeny one that really bought into the "fascist" argument.  

          A much larger percentage was simply tired of him after 8 years, and thought he was unnecessarily divisive and abrasive.   But even most of them still recognized that he'd done a hell of a job turning the city around from where it had been in the early 90s (myself included).  

          And if you look at the polls from that time, his approval was generally in the 40s or 50s.  Not fantastic, but a far cry from most New Yorkers hating him.  And today, the ratings are much higher.  

        •  well... (0+ / 0-)

          I live in NY now, and I haven't run into anyone who hated Giuliani.  Many of the locals I know think quite highly of him.

          The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

          by rfahey22 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:51:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  the location of his emergency control center (0+ / 0-)

        in the World Trade Tower was a big mistake.  He knew it was a target yet he planned for it to be the center to get to.

        The current rise in crime in urban centers across this country will continue to get him kudos.  It's just hard to believe that the Republican base will hire a man who has been married 3 times and had his mistress living in the mayor's house.  The other Republican's will take him out early.  

    •  Run, Rudy, run! (3+ / 0-)

      I, for one, simply cannot wait until the clips of Rudy in drag start showing up on tv in the Red States!

      Divorced, pro-abortion, pro- gun, control, lived with a gay couple...oh, yeah, he'll just sweep Mississpi and Alabama!

      Bring it on, Rudy!!!

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:18:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I will vote for Rudi if he's still in. Never (0+ / 0-)

        voted Republican before so can anyone help me.  Do I need to bring a flash light or will the cave be lit?

        There is in the nature of things an unchangeable relation between rash counsels and feeble execution. -- Daniel Webster 1812

        by SimplyLeft on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:30:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Running at the Head of the Pack for Years (0+ / 0-)

        Sounds great, but nobody saw the worst of Bush's history when he ran as "the new sheriff from Texas". And how do you explain Giuliani's numbers I cited, just the latest in his consistent leads?

        You don't. Just like I said: Democrats dogmatically underestimate Giuliani, to your peril. Maybe Giuliani is a good candidate to beat nationally - though Hillary was barely beating him even in "liberal" NY, before he dropped out with (probably voodoo induced) prostate cancer. But where Giuliani has been tested in public the past 6 years, the public loves him. Let's see some reasons, not just ideologies, to dis Giuliani. In their absence, let's see some strategies for beating him in the general election.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:49:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  No chance. (0+ / 0-)

      Considering it will take exactly 0.00001 seconds for his primary opponent to spam the airways with pictures of Rudy in drag, he has no chance of winning the nomination.  Republican primary voters are nothing if not bigoted.

      Don't worry about Giuliani.

      •  Main Chance (0+ / 0-)

        That's the kind of complacency that loses elections. A well-known parody with other officials/celebrities in NYC might chip away at Giuliani, but his leads, as I detailed them, are much stronger than that.

        As I said, if Democrats underestimate Giuliani, he will continue to lead. Or take for granted that he'll magically disappear without a fight. Every one of the rest of his field has their gotchas, and he's still starkly ahead, before even announcing or campaigning. Giuliani, though evil and a waster, is a winner. Getting opponents to underestimate him is one of his winning ways, just like Bush. Let's not do it again.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:32:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter (20+ / 0-)

    Prediction: there will continue to be a strong 'hate Hillary' camp on dailykos.

    I don't like some of her stances on certain issues, and no one should be muzzling debate of those issues. I will continue to challenge her views on Iraq, and stupid things like the FBA, because these are real issues that must be challenged.

    It's the irrational outright hatred for her candidacy, and for her personally from a vocal minority here that needs to be challenged.

    Want to challenge her stances on issues?
    I'm all ears. I might even agree with you once in a while.

    But those who 'hate Hillary' {and you know who you are} let's keep the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity bullshit talking points the hell off dailykos, though. OK?

  •  Fuck electability arguments (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    section29, cosbo

    The only electability argument that counts is if the candidate is actually trying to get elected or not. Do they have an organization or not?

    That is electability.

  •  Polls are meaningless (6+ / 0-)

    at this stage of the game--the primaries are a frekin' year away, fegawdsakes. So, please,  can we chill with 08 mania?

    Having said that, here's what I would like to see in the forthcoming campaign...

    ONE: No circular firing squad. If the Dem pack has any sense, they'll fight against the Rethugs, not each other. Any mud they throw at each other will just make the Rethugs' job that much easier come November 08.

    TWO:Run by doing, not talking. Memo to Hilary, Obama, Dodd, et. al.:You're in the Senate, so be a Senator. Show us your leadership and your skills in DC, not Iowa and New Hampshire. My vote will go to the candidate who best shows me what they can do, rather than endlessly talking about it.

    THREE: Innovation. I want to see a new paradigm in campaigning, one that centers on action rather than fundraising. I'm sick to death of seeing our people raise hundreds of millions of dollars to buy tv commercials that ultimately do nothing more than further line the already overstuffed pockets of Rupert Murdoch and the other corporate media barons. We need to stop funding our enemies.

    Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:58:02 PM PST

    •  I forgot to mention (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xerico, Lepanto, Dahvitch, TomP

      that if we really want to win in 08, our first priority has to be Election Reform.

      If the Rethugs were able to steal the White House in 2000 and 04, what are we doing to stop them from pulling it off again?

      Now that we have Congress, true reform must be of the highest priority. This means seeing to it that all election officials are neutral and non-partisan (no more Katherine Harris') and that there are national uniform standards for national elections. No more hackable computerized voting machines.

      Paper Ballots.

      Hand Counted.

      IN PUBLIC.

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:08:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The MSM likes the story (9+ / 0-)

    of Hilary Clinton v. Barack Obama.  There's a third frontruner in Nevada, NH, Iowa, and SC, the first primary states: John Edwards.  

    We'll rely on people power.   They can have the MSM and big doners.  We want the voters.

  •  I'm not wild about Hilary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, Caldonia

    But if she can deliver the White House, I'll take her over McCain, Rudy, or Newt.  I'll hold my nose and vote, if I have to.  

    Hilary vs. Rudy is interesting: two New Yorkers.  When's the last time two competitors came from the same state?

    I'm curious who is considering a third-party challenge, and how that might affect what will probably be a close race.  

    McCain's star seems to be sinking, and so I'm wondering if has the "lock" on the nomination conventional wisdom says he has.  I don't think he does, and Iraq will drag him down farther.  My guess is that the Repubs will be so hungry for a win that they'll jettison McCain and go to a second-tier candidate: Brownback, Huckleberry, Newt, or you name it.  

  •  If HRC is the nominee (7+ / 0-)

    I will treat 2008 as a non-presidential year. All my time and effort will go to downticket candidates and/or causes I believe in, such as ending the war and saving our civil liberties.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton is a repudiation of everything the netroots stand for and have worked for since Howard Dean challenged the party mandarins when everyone else sat on their hands. If nominated, she'll reinstate the McAuliffe regime at the DNC. If elected, she'll continue George W. Bush's imperial presidency and neo-conservative foreign policy.

    "I think I'm a flexible, open-minded person."--George W. Bush

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:02:18 PM PST

  •  This Primary Is Going to SUCK. (4+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton has quite the bankroll, and everyone know who she is.  And, they've made up their minds about her.  She won't be running any "getting to know me" ads.  She is an known - very well known - quantity.

    She can only hope to keep her positives from falling, and to run her opponents' negatives up.  I fear this primary will make the 2004 one look like a Sunday school picnic.

    Before it's over, Edwards will be gay and on Osama's payroll.  Obama will be a crack addict who likes to wear womens' panties.  Richardson will a radicalized member of La Raza who secretly wants to give the West back to Mexico, etc.

    If she makes it to the general, watching Hillary spend tens of millions of dollars on negative ads against her opponent would be amusing.  But watching her unleash a negative blitzkrieg on her fellow Democrats is gonna suck.  Just imagining the trainwreck her high negatives coupled with ungodly amounts of cash is bound to produce is almost enough to make me wish she is the "inevitable" nominee.  Almost....

  •  Clinton (4+ / 0-)
    The Democratic party would do well to dump Clinton as a candidate. She simply has far too much smelly baggage and make not mistake, the republicans will make as much use of this as they can.

    Do not forget that it was the misdoings of Bill that cost the Democrats in two election cycles. The Clinton scandals will come back to haunt the Democrats if she is aloud to run.

    •  President Clinton would win a Cakewalk (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jethropalerobber, TomP, floridadude

      c, please don't blame President Clinton for Hillary's unelectability.  Did you see the Washington Post poll?

      According to the poll, President Clinton's favorables are 61%.  I believe that, were he allowed to run, he would win by at least 6% points over any GOP nominee.

      Hillary's an altogether different story.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

      by PatriciaVa on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:13:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  which two cycles? (0+ / 0-)

      in the two cycles following clintons "misdoings", 1998 and 2000, the democrats picked up seats in the house and senate and won the presidential election.

      btw, bill clinton's current favorability rating is 61% - yeah, those "scandals" are really troublesome.

      "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy..."

      by jethropalerobber on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:15:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary IS Electable (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber, milton333, Caldonia

    It is too far out to say that a single poll is significant, but Hillary has broken her long running trend of trailing the leading Republicans by 5 %.  This is very positive for me fund raising efforts at the least.

  •  I'll post my utterly redundant take on Hilary (5+ / 0-)

    I'm sure I'll be posting variations on this for the next two years, but, whatever.

    First things first: I separate politics and policy. I'm sure Hilary's heart is generally in the right place in terms of policy; any distortions are likely the result of political calculations. Every politician has to do this. That's their job. It sounds totally lame, but it's true.

    So, on to politics. I am in the "Hilary would be an utter and complete disaster as a candidate camp." I think she would get trounced, I don't know a single real person who is excited about her, and I find her exceptionally boring on the stump.

    I personally hope that we at Kos can develop a strategy to nip her candidacy in the bud as early as possible.

    I worked my ass off for Kerry. I say this unequivocally: If Hilary is the nominee, I won't work for her and I won't donate a cent to her campaign. I'll vote for her (I vote straight democratic in every single election, for every single office).

    I pray Hilary is stopped, and soon.

  •  Obama (8+ / 0-)

    There's an article in NYTimes today that Obama is blaming the state of politics on the baby boomer generation, and the title is "Shushing the Baby Boomers". I think this is a terrible track to run.

    Americans hungered for "a different kind of politics," one that moved beyond the tired ideological battles of the 1960s

    First of all, there are many Republican baby boomers, and to assume all the boomers are ex-hippie, liberal Democrats is ridiculous.

    Second, there are a lot of us liberal Democrats who have supported upward mobility for lower, working and middle class all these years (before he was born), who have fought important battles. Yes, those were ideological battles, because changing the status quo ideology was being fought for.

    "In the back and forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004," he writes, "I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation — a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on the national stage."

    This really dismisses the Rovian tactics that really made the battlefield bloody.

    Mr. Obama says he recognizes that the flashpoints of the 60s — war, racism, inequality, the relations between the sexes — still animate American politics and society and remain largely unresolved. And he acknowledges, as a child of a white Kansan mother and black Kenyan father, that his own prominence and prospects would have been impossible without the struggles of those who marched in Selma and Washington. But he argues that America faces new challenges that require a new political paradigm.

    Damn right. So to dismiss these as boomer ideological battle problems is ridiculous.

    Plenty of self-loathing boomers agree that their cohort ought to take a "Big Chill" pill and head for that vegan commune in Oregon they have dreamed of. "We baby boomers have been dreadful in the public arena," the Time columnist Joe Klein wrote in a blog last week.

    That "self-loathing" label (tho not Obama's words) is such a stupid label. I've been called a "self-loathing" Jew because I disagree with Israel's politics.

    Mainly, I don't think alienating the boomers is the way to make a good campaign. And while I certainly agree that we need a new "political paradigm", I think blaming the old one on the boomers is ridiculous. Anyone who has read about politics in this country (read about LBJ's reign of terror in the senate for example) knows that the ideological battles go back way farther than the boomers.

    He never was my fave for the nomination, but now I consider him way too silly. And sorry for using the word "ridiculous" so many times, but I'm trying not to curse too much online.

    "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

    by MillieNeon on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:20:27 PM PST

    •  I'm with you. (7+ / 0-)

      Obama's whole schtick is all act. There is absolutely zero substance to what he says.

      I mean, what the hell is a new "political paradigm." They're words that sound good but mean nothing.

      Where are you, Senator Feingold?

      by Basil on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:24:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wait till the MSM tires of Obama's "novelty" (4+ / 0-)

        we'll never hear about him again.
        I have nothing whatsoever against him, I'm just not in favor in general of would-be "charismatic" types.
        I want principles and sound policy, not fluff.

        we're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression

        by Lepanto on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:50:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sam I Am, TomP

        when the people in the White House think they are fighting the Cold War again, the people in the Congress think they are fighting the Vietnam War again and the reality of the Iraq War is lost in the bickering, something has gone wrong.  I mean there was more discussion of Vietnam during the last presidential election than Iraq!  

        What have the boomers done about the big issues of our age?  They havent done anything about global warming, they havent addressed the changing global economy, they have made no real strides on energy independence or alternative energy, and they havent worked to change our outdated healthcare and retirement systems.  I mean, on the majority of these issues they still have a 1950's attitude toward the world, as if we have an infinite supply of fossil fuels and people still have one job their entire lives that provides their healthcare and retirement.

        While its certainly not politically smart to alienate one of the largest voting blocs in America, it is most definately true that our country desperately needs to move beyond the battles of the 1960s and 70s.

        "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams" -Paul Wellstone

        by WellstoneDem on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:00:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't understand. (3+ / 0-)

          But we did the same thing.  It was my generation that said "do not trust anybody over 30."  

          The battles of the 1960s and 70s were the battles of the 20s and 30s and are the battles of the 00s and teens.  It's always about right and wrong, which side you are on.

          If I were younger, I'd also be sick and tired of hearing about the "baby boomers."  But what you hear is a media creation.  It ain't real. The left was always a minority in the 60s and 70s.  There is no "baby boomers."  It has no content.  There are just people.  Obama knows this.  He's playing a rhetorical game.  

          Fight for real change.  Please don't buy the lies of the right wing.  Look deeper.

          •  "The left?" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP

            The Kennedy and Johnson adminstrations were considered "liberal"--the word had a different meaning somewhat in those days, in that liberals were powerful. Of course, liberals were against communism, which led many to support the war in Vietnam before it became an obvious disaster. Of course radicals were always in the minority, and most likely always will be. You are of course right about the myth of who baby boomers were and are...very few were hippies or radicals, most were regular folks who just happened to be born at a time when a whole lot of babies were being born--and just like all babies, we had absolutely no choice in the matter. The only thing that distinguishes Baby Boomers from other generations is their numerosity.

            "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

            by Alice in Florida on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:56:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  But you quote Paul Wellstone . . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade, TomP

          He brought to Congress the dreams of those who fought for Civil Rights, Feminism, Healthcare, equal pay for equal work, better education, etc. in the 60s. He certainly was of Boomer age.

          Yes, these are the ongoing battles of the Industrial Revolution age now carried into the Information Age. The last thing we need now is for those of us who believe in these dreams to be splintered. That is a terrible tactic.

          I remember marching for Civil Rights in the 60s and seeing little old gents and women (some in their 30s black berets) marching with us and cheering us on. This IS an ongoing battle to fulfill the promises of our Constitution.

          Don't get sidetracked by intergenerational stupidity. And it was the battles of the 60s and 70s that first implanted environmental struggles.

          To get rid of bipartisanship, all we need is for the right to agree that we need a thriving middle class, decent wages for teachers and others who serve our children, a healthy environment, an end to putting more money into the military industrial complex than we do into the well-being of our citizens. THAT is the cause of the battling, not the boomers.

          "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

          by MillieNeon on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:32:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are wrong to lump all boomers together... (0+ / 0-)

          There are some of us who care deeply and do what we can to combat the problems of this century. We vote, we strive to educate others, we don't drive SUVs. We are stuck with policies that are driven by the right wing, not age related at all. I know many younger people that have a greater "50's" mindset than me.

          Always write in pencil...

          by Dahvitch on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 04:05:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, bad grammar (0+ / 0-)

            than I

            Always write in pencil...

            by Dahvitch on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 04:09:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Its not about the general boomer, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            orchid314

            its about those in office.  I admire just about everything my parents have done, but theyre not in Congress or the White House.  Obama's point, with which I agree, is that those in office keep refighting their old fights, pursuing confrontation over compromise, and failing to come together to pragmatically address the substantial problems of today.

            "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams" -Paul Wellstone

            by WellstoneDem on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 04:15:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  The funny thing is that he also (0+ / 0-)

      is a baby boomer.  Born in 1961 -- pretty damn close.

      Unfortunately, another strawman argument.  Obama is a good progressive at heart.  I don't really understand why he is taking this tact, but he is.    

    •  Also, as someone born in 1955, (5+ / 0-)

      only six years before Obama, I wish I could recommend you a hundred times for this comment.  

      I read that article this morning and did not like it at all (or what Obama was saying, to be more precise).  We who have been life-long Democrats, fought and got bloody, adn got up again to fight, do not deserve attacks on us from Democratic candidates.

      It bugged me.  I like Obama (although I support Edwards), but I don't like this stuff.

      This might be worth a separate diary.

      •  I don't think he's attacking progressives . . . (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jethropalerobber, TomP

        . . . as much as he's attacking the polarization that the period created.  Our parties were formed along lines including Vietnam and sexual freedom, but that's not where America is today.  At its best, what Obama's argument means is that if progressives are seen for what they're advocating today, and not for pre-set cultural views hardened from the 1960s, that what we're advocating will be more widely supported.

        In other words, there's a lot of people who might call themselves "liberal" if they didn't associate the term with hippies.

        •  I don't agree. I see your point, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MillieNeon, prodigal

          but it has not been about hippies for a long time.  Obama may not understand that era since he spent a lot of time overseas where he did not get US TV news, etc., as a kid.  I think he has fundamental misconceptions about the so-called culture wars.  For example, should we give up Roe v. Wade?  We could get more votes.  A big driver of the polarization is Roe v. Wade and tolerance of gays.  Feminism.  That is culture war.  (and I know Obama is on the right side on these issues, he supports Roe, gays rights, and feminism.)

          He attacks the side who fought and fought to make those things happen (we baby boomers).  Now we are the polarizers, teh bad ones for sacrificing to do what is right.

          As for his attack on baby boomers, I'd buy it more from Kath (whatever her number is) who does the Kossacks under 35 bit.   But she doesn't do that.  At least she would be the right age.

          His statements in that article bothered me on a personal level.  He validates a right wing smear about "baby boomers."  I don't like be atacked me because I am six years older than him.

          Maybe he'll explain more later.  I think he is a good progressive, but I don't like some of his campaign themes.  

          Sorry, if I'm not being diplomatic.  I usually try to, but this really bugs me.

        •  Any self-respecting hippie (0+ / 0-)

          would have been pretty insulted to be called "liberal" (though they'd probably just laugh--an SDS member would be really insulted, though). Just to give you a little flavor of what "liberal" meant to the left in those days, here's a song by Phil Ochs Love Me, I'm A Liberal

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:08:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hippies (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shahryar

          The 'Dirty hippies ruined the democrats' meme really pisses me off.  Machine bi-partisan politic cast them as radicals and the only ones who represented the sixties in the mainstream political arena were machine guys like Humphrey or academic elitists like McGovern.  Within our society however they did accomplish major changes, which both parties seem hell bent to demolish and vilify. I think that if you want to start blaming movements for our present predicament, take a look at the 80's, screw or get screwed, mentality which produced and gave wide support [via the yuppies] to the bipartizan corporatization we have now.

      •  as a vintage baby-boomer I feel that Obama (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP

        should bear in mind that we're the ones who actually bother to vote...

        we're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression

        by Lepanto on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:25:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      Very disappointing perspective and performance by Obama in this piece.  And this new political paradigm consists of . . .
      hope and bipartisanship?

      Screw that.  The ideological battles of the 60's -- war, racism, environment and poverty -- aren't over.  The challenges are not new.

      Kind of snotty attitude actually.  

      Mine and his.
      :-)

      "Willie, the children are over-stimulated. Remove all the colored chalk from the classrooms." --Principal Skinner

      by prodigal on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:07:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm going to agree with Obama (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jethropalerobber

      But I'm not going to agree with Obama that what he is trying to achieve can be accomplished.  

      So.  To explain.

      What I think he's getting at is a label driven paradigm of the 1960s.  The ability to tell everything you need to know about someone based on only one issue or experience.  If you marched against the war, you were a commie.  If you were in a frat studying business law, you were a corporo-fascist.

      Now I didn't grow up in the 60s, so I don't want to say I know everything about it, people can correct me if I'm wrong but my experiences going to college in the 80s and 90s is that if a guy was studying corporate law, it was just as likely that person might also have hair down to here and marched against the first war in Iraq war, and some of the people I met in Comp Lit went on to become real estate agents and big players in the Tech boom.

      Maybe there was more diversity of circumstance in the 60s then I give it credit for.

      I think I do know what Obama is getting at.  I agree with it.  I think the world would be better off, I think America would make better collective decisions with a new paradigm.  But just so it's clear, as far as politics is concerned, I don't think it's possible insofar as, in the world of politics, there are limits to our better aspirations.

      Human nature is to make judgements about who people are and what their positions are based on simplified binaries, and first impressions.

      •  You really don't know because you weren't (0+ / 0-)

        there.  You are perceiving, just as I do about things before me, based on stories.  The same would be true were I to generalize about what you experienced on campuses.  (I actually was on college campuses in the 80s and early 90s anyway as a undergrad and then law student, but my experiences wre diferent.)

        This shows the damage of Obama's ambition-driven themes.  He will split the movement in order to get political advanatage.

        We are not ememies.  I am not your enemy.  We are fighting for the same thing.  Let's work together to elect Democrats.  

        •  So (0+ / 0-)

          wearing a tie-dye t-shirt going to a Grateful Dead concert could have meant you were a war supporter in the 1960s??

          •  What are you talking abourt? (0+ / 0-)

            I don't understand what you're talking about.

            I don't think you understand the 60s.  Many people opposed the war who were not hippies.  Again, you are repeating a right wing stereotype.  

            Look, you can see it as you wish.  Nothing I can say will change your mind.  I'm glad you are also a Democrat and we'll agree to diagree about tie-dyed tee shirts or whatever picture you have in your mind about the 60s and 70s.

            If you support Obama, that's fine also.

            •  Ok. (0+ / 0-)

              But I was talking about identifiers.  I guess I gave the wrong impression.

              In any case.  As the Viet Nam war dragged on I'm sure a great many people who might have supported it initially changed their mind.

              If I was referring to a stereotype the right wing has of anti-war folks, it should be noted I was also referring to a stereotype the left wing has about people who support wars.

              The point is, I don't think politics can exist without such stereotypes.  Obama's attempt to rise above them, historically contextualized in the 60s or not, is admirable but naive.

        •  Obama's not attacking the movement, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          orchid314, Sam I Am

          he said its time for America to move to a new kind of politics.  Hes not singling out those on the left but the confrontational tactics of the whole generation.  Read the article, he recognizes the contributions of those who came before him.  What he is attacking is the way those in the baby-boom generation have governed over the last 15 years.  
          Old animosities have kept them from getting anything meaningful done.  

          The right absolutely dispised the Clintons because they are the opponents of their youth, the draft-doger and the power-seeking woman.  The left hated Bush before he ever was elected because he was the privileged youth that partied and cared only about himself while they were out protesting.

          I greatly admire what people came together to do in the 60s and 70s on issues of Vietnam, race, gender, environment, etc.  Nonetheless, those who were in their youth then, have wasted their time in office now.  Their pasts keep them from working together on the big issues of today.  While the previous generation, though disagreeing on many things, was able to come together to confront the problems of their day, the boom generation is so obsessed with confrontation, demonizing their opponents, and refighting Vietnam, that major issues are hardly even addressed.

          "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams" -Paul Wellstone

          by WellstoneDem on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 04:06:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Joe Klien is a pitiful (0+ / 0-)

      example of a baby boomer.  Other than him, who might be self loathers in the baby boom generation?  Obama seems to have a few more issues himself than he would like to admit.  Every time I hear something new from him it is in the form of talking about other peoples attitudes as being defective, but not his own.  He seems to think noone is perfect enough such as democrats who aren't religious enough, and don't as he perceives it, welcome enough religion into the party, and now baby boomers are on his shitlist as self-loathing.  What's next to be lectured on?

      "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

      by hopscotch1997 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:14:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As the daughter of baby boomers, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WellstoneDem

      I'm amused by the response Obama's statements have generated here. Flame away, but these responses reinforce the stereotype of the boomers as the generation that must be Number 1, The Best, The Most, the Center of Attention and the Ultimate Authority on All Issues. Why? Because we're the baby boomers, of course!

  •  I'll bet McCain went down even further today (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, HillaryGuy, hillary42008

    The MTP interview had McCain looking anything BUT Presidential.   He was so very old looking!   talked like a worn out old dishrag.     Throwing around spin like "We have to try this new strategy"!   WTF new strategy.    It's been tried, what, like 4 times already and failed?    Fallujah was cleaned out, and is now as bad as ever.    
    McCain has a shot in hell of ever making it as candidate.    Dobson's comment last week that he would not vote for McCain, was the final blow .

    So now we have Guiliani in next place.    Well, with a few well placed ads about his past and his connections to Kerik, and tossing out his sick wife, etc,   he won't look too Presidential, either.

  •  I forsee a serious 3rd party candidacy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    owl06

    as a distinct possibility this time around, much as there was in 1992.

    The Republican Party will continue to self-destruct.

    Chuck Hagel is already making noises about an
    independent run, and remnants of the Perot's party are still out there, too.

    Hagel, if he is careful and chooses a Democrat as a running mate could be a serious contender, not just a spoiler to break the two party hold on the Presidency.  

  •  Secretly Recorded: "Hillary," By George W. Bush (0+ / 0-)

    Poor George Bush. He just can't catch a break. Now that the Democrats are in charge of the Congress, it just isn't fun being President any more.

    Now all he does is mope around the Oval Office, singing sad songs and counting the days until he can turn over the keys to Air Force 1 to his successor and go on a permanent Summer Vacation in Crawford.

  •  WaPo poll... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EdwardsRaysOfSunshine, Lepanto, TomP

    is always wrong. These people are tools of the Corporate Slave State.

    And it's clear to see who they favor for Democratic candidate for President in 2008:

    The least progressive...

    The most divisive...

    The ones who cannot win...

    Yep, I detect the fine hand of the Kewl Kids making sure no progressive will get elected spoil their excellent cocktail weenie 'get togethers' with Rape Gurney Joey the Liarmann.

    These AssClowns of teh MSM are prolly planning their big parties to celebrate 'Straight Shooter' McCain's victory in 2008.

    Morons.

    'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

    by Nestor Makhnow on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:23:59 PM PST

    •  All of the ones listed in the poll have (0+ / 0-)

      good records on progressive issues. Individually they all have a couple of issues that could be a lot better in the progressive area, or in their past reputations, but overall they aren't bad.  Besides, they aren't just the ones picked by the MSM, they are the main ones who have been making noise about running.  Who else would you expect to have on the list?  What other progressive has shown an interest and indicated that they are running.  I'm all for a new face, frankly I am sick of the same old faces, but we can't nominate them out of thin air.

      "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

      by hopscotch1997 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:01:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't agree that the all candidates... (0+ / 0-)

        ...'have good records on progressive issues...' But let us not argue about it.

        The point is that they left Edwards out of the head to head polling as was pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

        And yeah, am I tired of?

        'I,I,I, and me...Hillary Clinton...

        'Let's just hope for the best...' Obama...

        Well, in a word yes.

        I just don't believe anything the WaPo or the NYT or any of the rest of the MSM have to say about anything. Sad but true is the fact that these folks have been massively wrong on just about....

        ...everything they've said about any issue.

        For years.

        That was my point not that the was anything wrong with the candidates the WaPo polled about are running.

        It's still a 'free country'...sort of.

        'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

        by Nestor Makhnow on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:48:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary makes me wretch (2+ / 0-)

    with DLC acid reflux.

  •  Edwards should be higher up... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EdwardsRaysOfSunshine, benny05, TomP

    Yet he is still ignored.  If he doesn't win the nomination, I will not vote.

  •  I think (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue vertigo

    Hillary is ahead right now because -- like in all '08 polls in the last several months -- people know who she is and she's had lots of publicity. And I still believe she is too hateable and has been pandering too much in recent months (I will not forgive her for supporting the flag burning amendment) to win the Dems nomination. I think the anti-Hillary Dems are still looking for their candidate since Bayh and Warner are out and individuals like Clark haven't announced their candidacies. Obama is NOT the anti-Hillary because he's more liberal and less experienced than she is; he's actually got some more liability than Hillary in some respects. The only anti-Hillary Dem I see right now who's declared a candidacy is Richardson if only because he's a career politician and not a Washington insider (remember, only two sitting senators have ever been elected president). And I hate the word "electable." Worthy candidates are "inspiring"  ;)

    As for the GOP, I can't see anyone but McCain getting the nomination.

    "What is the most important thing in life? People, people, people." -- Maori proverb

    by mkfox on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:37:52 PM PST

  •  Interesting how Giulliani keeps edging McCain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia

    Imagine this "ALL NY" matchup:

    Clinton vs Giulliani

  •  I wish (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    we had some better process than this clash-of-egos horserace for selecting candidates.  I don't think any of our potentials are bad candidates and by and large are fairly representative of various groups and opinions within the party . . . but dang -- this popularity contest where anybody just jumps on in makes us seem like less a party and more like paparazzi.

    Yeah, I'm cranky today.

    But I wonder if we had something more akin to Canadian or British party leaders if we'd maybe get better leadership.

    Because it seems like what the party stands for depends on who grabs the most media, the most money, the most support.

    Okay, I'm not contributing positively.  I'm just expressing some dissatisfaction with the constant emphasis on personalities rather than policies.

    "Willie, the children are over-stimulated. Remove all the colored chalk from the classrooms." --Principal Skinner

    by prodigal on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:57:17 PM PST

  •  Howard dean has made his (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue vertigo, TomP

    views on HRC as the nominee clear by chosing Denver of New York for the convention, what effect will this have on the relationship between Sen Clinton, if she wins the nomination, and the DNC? intresting to see, no?

    If I were to walk on the potomac tomorrow, the headline would read "president can't swim" - LBJ

    by Huwcs on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:02:37 PM PST

  •  Let's front page the Newsweek poll as well (6+ / 0-)

    The latest Newsweek poll shows only John Edwards leading both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

    Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lead McCain (by smaller margins than Edwards does) but both Clinton and Obama trail Giuliani.

    Edwards 48% McCain 43%
    Edwards 48% Giuliani 45%

    Clinton 48% McCain 47%
    Clinton 47% Giuliani 48%

    Obama 46% McCain 44%
    Obama 45% Giuliani 47%

  •  Who did they poll? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe, TomP

    A list submitted by James Cueball Carville perhaps?

    Looks to me as if the DC insiders are starting early trying to create consensus for their rigged choices in 2008 by poll. Well they can count on the fact that I and a lot of other people will not be jumping on their phony arsed bandwagon. In my opinion the establishment is trying to ignore the electorate’s clear demand for reform in this last election with some smoke and mirrors place of substantive reform and investigations and thinking they can snooker the people again with their tired old act called lets you and him fight while we shovel it all out from under both of you. (These economic sharks really are a one trick pony when it comes to political strategy.) Well I don’t think they can pull it off again, and their time is running out fast. They had best give up some power and money to the working/middle classes (85 percent plus of population or face some serious wrath from that overwhelming majority. A third of a loaf is better than no loaf at all or worse.

    The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

    by Bobjack23 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:12:52 PM PST

  •  I hate these MSM polls (0+ / 0-)

    they're MSM's way of preempting the primaries...

    we're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression

    by Lepanto on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:30:47 PM PST

  •  My rightwing, Bush loving, religious (0+ / 0-)

    sister, has picked out Guliani.  This means something to me.  She is also anti choice.  I tried to explain Guliani's past to her, telling her all about his out in the open affair, while his wife was living in the Govs. mansion.  She just laughed.  I guess morals and values are only expected of Democrats.  

    McCain is all washed up.  I never hear people say they admire him anymore.  He's boring and too damn serious, and his latest push for sending a larger number of military to Iraq is about to finish him off.

    I'd also like to know if Clinton is so hated, why is she going up in polls, and now in almost every poll, is above or equal to any contenders.  If it's name recognition, as some are saying, and people hate her from the past, then the numbers should be going the other way.

    I actually think Richardson is the best qualified, but some of the people have posted here about his appearance.  I see nothing wrong with his appearance, but if people are going to get as picky as this and can't get past his height, plumpness, or whatever, it's going to be a long torturous next two years on DailyKos.

    "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

    by hopscotch1997 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:55:23 PM PST

    •  people are much too dimissive of rudy (0+ / 0-)

      i don't think he's nearly the hard pill for GOP primary voters that everyone thinks.

      "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy..."

      by jethropalerobber on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:37:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What about his anti-choice background? (0+ / 0-)

        His public affair?
        His support of gay marriage?

        Granted, by the time he starts campaigning noone will ever believe that he stood for any of these things, but it is bound to be brought up by someone.

        I guess that self preservation trumps everything for the GOP crowd.  Juliani is a terror fighter, and that is all that counts now.  Safety first, then come all the values and morals we have all had to suffer through for the last 6 years because they said we had to.

        "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

        by hopscotch1997 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:41:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama in various areas (0+ / 0-)

    Does anyone know how well Obama is doing against his competitors in suburban area, rural areas, small towns, etc? I would love to see some polling in some of the "bellwether" areas of the country.

  •  Name Recognition, and... (0+ / 0-)

    The fact that Republicans are incompetent.

    These polls are meaningless, as "leaners" never show up to the caucus.

  •  She has my vote! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noneya

    Hillary might be the only one with the balls to turn things around.  Obama is the flavor of the week (can you say Dean 2004?) and will fade.

  •  Contact WAPO, demand fairness towards Edwards (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, EdwardsRaysOfSunshine

    No way a candidate that does better than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE OF ANY OTHER PARTY in a national poll (Newsweek) should be excluded in this WAPO poll.

    ombudsman@washpost.com

    •  just a thought (0+ / 0-)

      I doubt you'll get anywhere with the Washington Post. They're about as responsive as a stale English muffin.   You might do better emailing the "Mystery Pollster" at www.pollster.com and asking if he'd take a shot at explaining the discrepency.  Based on my past experience, he'll make a real effort to give you an answer, which may or may not bolster your argument.  

  •  Interesting numbers... (0+ / 0-)
    ...and encouraging for the Dems.  Particularly with McCain's slipping, as I tend to believe that's real, given the recent backlash against him among previously supportive Indies and Dems.

    As an aside, a concern regarding this comment by kos:

    So I like the numbers as a baseline, but they have no bearing on the ultimate "electability" of any of these candidates. (And yeah, some of you will still make that argument as you promote your favorite, and there's nothing I can do about it.)

    Matters of electability seem to me to be germane to the whole issue, frankly.  I'm not sure why you want to poison and discourage those discussions.

    Taken in conjunction with the recent rebuke against "whining" about not including our favorite candidates in polls or otherwise impassioned activism in favor of our favorites, it surely seems like this site has become somewhat more adversarial  lately to participants who don't exactly agree with the admin.  

    I always discuss politics on this site with mutual respect.  I learn a lot from the other users here. But don't always share kos' opinions or analyses on the candidates he promotes.  So to have the discourse artificially constrained because he doesn't like to hear some aspects clearly germane to the topic is something of a disappointment and ultimately doesn't seem to benefit our community.

    ...The Precinct 134 Blog: Focusing on local politics in Chandler, Arizona and the surrounding community.

    by George in AZ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 04:51:39 PM PST

  •  Progressive Fundamentalists (0+ / 0-)

    After reading this and similar threads, I've become convinced that there is such a thing as "progressive" or liberal (take your pick) fundamentalism.  Like religious fundamentalists, the lib/progressive fundies are primarily concerned with adherence to the one "true" doctrine and are enraged by those who deviate from it - particularly those with whom they agree on almost all issues.  They see their perfect faith as under attack by these infidels / pretenders, so they tend to lash out when given the chance.  

    The "Hillary-haters" (I don't mean people who don't agree with her on issues, or just prefer a different candidate - I mean the haters) strike me as fundamentalist types.  I get the feeling that they want to stone (figuratively) any candidate who doesn't meet their ideological purity test, but first and foremost Hillary because she is the most prominent and by certain measures the most successful.  They find it impossible to understand - much less accept - that in a democratic society you don't always get exactly what you want, that you have to be willing to cooperate with others.  [The comment about not voting for Hillary because she voted for the flag burning amendment comes to mind.  I mean, the flag burning amendment?  What is wrong with you??]    

    We have a duty, first and foremost, to get the presidency out of Republican control so we can start to rebuild what they destroyed.  People in this country and around the world have paid with their lives because we elected bad leaders.  

    I believe Clinton, Obama and Edwards are each terrific, and would do a great job as president, though perhaps in different ways.  And I believe its important to speak out about why you prefer whatever candidate you prefer.  But tearing down any of these three in public - I just think its inexcusable.  They have each done many fine things.  Hillary has been wonderful on gender equality.  Obama's recent trip to Africa to promote AIDS testing and counseling was magnificent.  The commitment Edwards has to the working and middle class and economic fairness is nothing short of inspirational.  None of them deserve to be talked about as if they are morally equivalent to the scum who brought us the Iraq and Katrina debacles.  And people here who say they won't vote if Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards) is the nominee should be ashamed of themselves.  

    And as for Gore, leave the poor man alone.  He is a good man, and what he's doing now is making a huge difference.  The 2000 election was a horrible, horrible experience and he was treated badly not just by Republicans and the MSM but by a lot of progressives too, some of whom made the same arguments then that are made now about Hillary (he's overshadowed by Bill; he's boring; he's not likable etc).  Can any of us imagine going through what he went through back then?   Those of us who admire him should be happy he's doing something now that he cares about.  For pity's sake, let the man live his life.  

  •  This thread makes me want Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    There's too much irrational anger about Hillary.  She is a centrist democrat with a good analytical mind, little warmth, and careful way to articulate herself.

    She is not my choice at all (I voted for Al Sharpton in 2004 CA primary), but this thread makes me want to give her money.

  •  Polls and polls and polls.... (0+ / 0-)

    Here's a snap poll done by a local tv station in Arkansas today...

    Hillary: 41%
    Clark:  26%
    Edwards and Obama: each with 11%

    Of course everyone already knows Hillary. Her numbers will not go up. Clark has not gotten much  local coverage...newspaper is a RW rag.

  •  List is presumptuous (0+ / 0-)

    This list of who's leading is presumptuous as the election is 22 months away.  That's almost 2 years.  A lot can happen in 2 frickin years!

  •  One problem with polls (0+ / 0-)

    is that they may reflect the popular vote (maybe) but they do NOT reflect the electoral vote (the one that actually elects the President).

    Hillary will lose by Dukakis proportions in the E.C.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site