Skip to main content

dKos Reader Poll. 4/16. 20,343 respondents (as of 4.17.07 9:06 a.m. PT)

            2007            2006            2005
            Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Jul May Mar Jan Nov Sep

Edwards      42  38  26  35  28  15   8   7   8  12  10
Obama        25  26  25  28  28
Richardson   13   8   6   5   4   2   1   2   3   5   3
Other         5   9   8   *   *   3   6   3   6   2   3
No F'ing Clue 5   8   6   *   *   3   4   6   6   6   6
H. Clinton    3   3   4   4   5   2   2   2   3   6   8
Kucinich      2   2   4
Biden         0   1   0   1   1   1   1   1   1   3   3
Dodd          0   0   0   0   0   0   0
Gravel        0   0   0   0   0

-- not running --

Bayh          -   -   -   -   1   1   1   1   1   1   1
Clark         -   -  14  17  26  17  15  15  22  26  34
Daschle       -   -   -   -   -   0   1   0
Feingold      -   -   -   -   -  38  44  48  30  19  19
Kerry         -   -   -   1   1   2   1   1   3   2   2
Vilsack       -   -   1   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0
Warner        -   -   -   -   -  10  10  11  12  14   4

I was at the hospital all night with a sick wife (she'll be fine) and unhappy baby, so I won't do any analysis. I'm about to go and try to get some sleep. The only thing I'll note is that Richardson now has six straight straw polls in which he has increased his support, and has now burst strongly into double-digit territory. He's now threatening to break into the blogospheric "top tier", along with Edwards and Obama. The big question, of course, is whether that'll have any impact in the real world (where Hillary is still at the top).

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:10 AM PDT.

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

    •  Ditto. (10+ / 0-)

      My wife just had an appointment yesterday to make sure everything was okay after some concern, everything is still fine luckily.

      As for analysis.  I see four things.

      1. Biden, Obama, Other and NFC have decreased by 9 points.
      1. Richardson has picked up five points.
      1. Edwards has picked up four points.
      1. Richardson and Edwards are the ONLY candidates to continue rising in the Daily Kos 2008 straw poll after their announcement "tours".

      One man with courage makes a majority
      - Andrew Jackson

      by chuckles1 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:24:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm surprised (6+ / 0-)

        that a moderate like Richardson would poll so high. I suspect that when his positions on domestic issues, like health care and trade, become known, his support will level off or go down.

        He's going nowhere.

        •  "New" (11+ / 0-)

          Each person that comes out as "new" gets a little surge.  Then, they start spouting out the same old tired rhetoric and they fizzle.

          I think the MAJOR reason that Edwards is doing so well here is that he isn't spouting talking points.  

          The other candidates are looking at the electorate like it's 2003, Edwards is just running his own race.  As a recent article said...

          Of the top six, only Edwards spent no money on polling in the period.

          One man with courage makes a majority
          - Andrew Jackson

          by chuckles1 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:47:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He is not polling!! (9+ / 0-)

            Wow, he must be saying what he thinks.  Talk about a new type of politician.

          •  Obama hasn't moved an inch. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Danny Boy, Quinton, faolan

            That is strange.

            Obama came on the scene here with a big splash (Dec-06, 28%), but has gone nowhere since (Apr-07, 25%.)

            You would think with all of the MSM hype and gaggle and carnival celebration atmosphere around Obama, that Obama would make some gains here.

            Has Obama's position-less blank slate Dr. Phil feelgood psychobabble campaign run outta gas?

            Are there limits to how far a candidate can advance on just attractively packaged bottled air?

            Obama had the potential to walk away with the entire Dem leftie netroots, but he never delivered the beef, just the sizzle, and Kossacks are way smarter than to succomb to empty hype and flash.

            meanwhile, Edwards patiently & quietly just slogs away, building and building, like a seasoned pro.

            I suspect that Edwards is doing the same sort of quiet incremental base-building out in the grassroots field, below the radar and below the gaggle of the MSM.

        •  His effectiveness in Korea (7+ / 0-)

          and on the global scene in general may have something to do with it.

          After the total incompetence of the Bushies on the global scene, some people may yearn for someone with some expertise and experience in that area.  

          And that would not be Obama or Edwards.  Biden and Hillary have global experience, but most Kossacks have already rejected them for other reasons.

          So Richardson has that series of issues pretty much to himself at this time.

          However, if Al Gore enters the race...


          •  what effectiveness in North Korea? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            peace voter, venice ca, boofdah, Quinton

            Richardson described his diplomatic breakthrough last week as follows:

            The North Koreans agreed to begin shutting down their Yongbyon atomic reactor, the facility that provides fuel for their nuclear weapons, and say they will allow UN weapons inspectors back into the country for the first time in five years.

            The world is a safer place today, and I am proud to have played a role in securing this agreement.

            I was in Pyongyang this week to secure the remains of six American servicemen who died during the Korean War.

            This is a very positive gesture on the part of the North Korean government. Hopefully it will help heal the wounds from the Korean War and start a process to bring closure to the thousands of American families awaiting word about their loved ones who perished.

            My years of experience dealing with North Korea and my knowledge of the region allowed me to help facilitate this new resolution to end their nuclear weapons program.

            Curiously, before the trip, Richardson didn't have a publicly-disclosed nuclear brief. The release of the bodies was already negotiated, and Richardson joined the Bush delegation at the request of the North Koreans (he had made at least five visits before, so he's a familiar quantity to them). The weird thing is, North Korea is still operating its plant (the deadline was April 15), the inspectors are still not allowed in, and Pyongyang hasn't touched the $25 million. So what really went on?

            Sure, Richardson is a politician, and has a longstanding habit of taking credit for diplomatic breakthroughs negotiated by others (his e-mail could be nothing more than that). But even so, the more I look at his trip, the more puzzled I am. What exactly are the Bush Administration's backroom deals with the North Koreans, including permission to sell arms to Ethiopia? We're not even close to having the whole story. And it's still a toss-up, in my mind, whether Richardson's recent trip was a success.

            •  They may be shutting down the reactor (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CalifSherry, venice ca, QuickSilver

              During questions about North Korea in yesterday's State Department briefing, Spokesman, Sean McCormack seemed sanguine or at leat patient:

              QUESTION: On BDA[Banco Delta Asia]. BDA issued a statement unhappy with the Treasury's final rule last month and they're asking for all the accountholders to regain access to international financial system. Have you seen this statement?

              MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen it. I guess I'm not surprised that BDA is unhappy with the Treasury role inasmuch as it eliminates their ability to deal with the U.S. financial markets and therefore makes it very difficult for them to do business with the international financial system. I'm not aware of any changes in the intent of the Department of Treasury at this point regarding the rule.

              QUESTION: And sorry, one more on North Korea. Ambassador Hill, as he left Beijing, mentioned that he had sent a message to the North Koreans through their Embassy in Beijing. Have you guys heard anything back from them?

              MR. MCCORMACK: Not that I'm aware of.

              QUESTION: (Inaudible.) to do with BDA? Do you think this will affect your negotiations with North Koreans in any way?

              MR. MCCORMACK: Will it affect --

              QUESTION: The -- I mean the BDA -- the ruling -- I'm sorry, BDA challenge would affect your negotiations with North Koreans in any way.

              MR. MCCORMACK: In the six-party talks?

              QUESTION: Yes.

              MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we'll see. The ball is in their court. We are prepared to refocus our efforts and I expect that the other members of the six-party talks are ready to refocus their efforts on -- their efforts as well on the core issue at hand, and that is the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We've made it clear that the BDA issue is resolved. We've gone the extra mile after implementing the Treasury rule in working with the parties to remove the obstacles for these accountholders. They can now access the accounts at the Banco Delta Asia. And any remaining issues are between North Korea and their bankers and it's for them to resolve.

              Anything else on this?

              QUESTION: Yes. IAEA said today they received no word from North Korea. Are you disappointed at that news or do you have any comment?

              MR. MCCORMACK: Well, of course we'd like to see the process move forward and we have said that -- as well as other members of the six-party talks that we are willing to give this issue some number of days to work out. The BDA issue was a lot more complicated than we expected and I think most people expected. So we want to show some flexibility in this, but certainly the patience of the six parties or the other five parties is not finite -- is finite, excuse me. It's not infinite. It is finite, not infinite. (Laughter.)

              QUESTION: There was talk about the new deadline and I know what you've said about it, but the patience of the other five parties -- but what about your patience? I mean, yes, you've given them some days. You have said you'll be flexible. But a deadline came and went.

              MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

              QUESTION: There's no new deadline. So in your own Administration there are people who are very impatient about this, so how are you going to deal with this current -- as it currently stands?

              MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that will be up to the President and the Secretary of State and the other senior members of the Administration to decide. Currently, where we are is we're going to give this process some time to work out. They don't have an infinite amount of time and the ball is in the court of the North Koreans. We would hope that they move it -- they move the process forward. In the meantime, they're not going to be able to see the 50,000 tons of fuel oil that they talked about. The South Korean Government has talked about the fact that they are going to hold up some shipments of rice to North Korea, and I think that sends a pretty strong message that North Korea will need to act in good faith in order to see good faith actions in return. That's the whole principle that underpins the six-party talks. And we'll see if that still holds. We'll have an idea in the coming days whether or not it does.

              The North Koreans - now confident that they can, in fact, access funds which had been frozen by the US Treasury Department, may in fact be in the process of shutting down the nuclear reactor.

              Tokyo, April 17 (RIA Novosti) US satellites have spotted unusual activity near North Korea's nuclear reactor which, Washington believes, may be evidence that North Korea is closing down the reactor, South Korea's Dong-a Ilbo said Tuesday citing diplomatic sources.

              A part of the back story in all of this has to do with North Korean funds which had been frozen by Treasury:

              Washington blacklisted the Banco Delta Asia (BDA) in Macao in September 2005, accusing it of being a money-laundering front for Pyongyang. The DPRK has denied the charges but its 25 million U.S. dollar funds in the BDA were frozen.

              It's all very intriguing - lot's of players involved.  I too, am puzzled.


              •  according to the State Department (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CalifSherry, peace voter

                The February 13th agreement with North Korea for the shutdown of the Yongbyon reactor is apparently still in effect. It makes me wonder what "new agreement" Richardson negotiated last week.

                •  Yes, February 13 agreement (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CalifSherry, QuickSilver


                  The February 13th agreement came up again in today's State Department briefing. There were questions about Bill Richardson, as well, but State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack did really shed any light on what new agreement, if any had come out of the Governor's recent trip to N. Korea.  From what I've been reading, my hunch is that it has to do with banking & unfreezing assets that had been frozen by the US Treasury Dept.

                  QUESTION: Can you tell us on the telephone conversation between Secretary Rice and South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-soon this morning?

                  MR. MCCORMACK: They did have a conversation. They talked a little bit about the BDA issue and where we stand and where we stand with the six-party talks. At the moment, we are at a point of the North Koreans being able to access those accounts in BDA that were previously frozen -- that according to the Macanese officials. So the ball is in the North Korean court. Any issues that may exist or that may be perceived as being there are issues between the North Koreans and their bankers. We have done everything that we possibly can to resolve this and we would like very much to get back to the point of focusing on the main topic of the six-party talks, and that is a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. And we hope that we are able to get back to that point in the very near future. We, as well as other members of the six-party talks, are looking to North Korea to take the steps that they have pledged that they would take under the February 13th agreement, which means shutting down and sealing the Yongbyon reactor.

                  QUESTION: Governor Richardson said he's optimistic to getting back to, you know, six-party talks North Korea said. What is the reality of returning North Korea and Governor Richardson said -- is he more optimistic story about it?

                  MR. MCCORMACK: Governor Richardson?

                  QUESTION: Yes.

                  MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know -- I haven't seen all of his public comments. We're all hopeful that we can get back to the business of the six-party talks, which is getting into discussions about how to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula as well as other topics that may well be on the agenda concerning the security architecture in Northeast Asia as well as the armistice that is currently in place involving North Korea, the United States, China and the UN.

                  We all want to get back to that point. We're not at that point yet. And what we need to see from North Korea are actions to implement the February 13th agreement.


                  QUESTION: Governor Richardson had said that the North Koreans had -- I'm sorry if this had come up previously, but had -- the North Koreans had expressed a willingness to return the U.S.S. Pueblo. I was wondering if you had heard back from the delegation about that.

                  MR. MCCORMACK: I had not heard that before.

                  QUESTION: Well, apparently, he took --

                  MR. MCCORMACK: I know that they took him for a tour of the U.S.S. Pueblo.

                  QUESTION: Well, apparently, they expressed a willingness to return this in -- as part of a goodwill gesture in terms of a possible armistice agreement and stuff like that. If you can --

                  MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't heard that, Elise, so I'll have to track it down and see if there's any particular reaction.

                  QUESTION: Thanks.

                  MR. MCCORMACK: Nicholas.

                  QUESTION: Back on the phone call with the Secretary and the foreign minister of South Korea. Did they at all talk about the Virginia Tech incident and the fact that the person who was identified as the shooter was South Korean? Did that come up? Do you know?

                  MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware that it did.

                  QUESTION: And just on the -- back on the BDA issue, the owner of the bank, Stanley Au I think is his name, said today that the only way for the money to go back to the North Koreans if -- is for the money to be actually withdrawn in cash because no bank will actually take the money. Just for the record, you don't have any problem with the North Koreans going physically and taking cash out of their bank, do you?

                  MR. MCCORMACK: Any specific arrangements the North Koreans and their bankers may work out are for them to work out. The North Korean pledge is to use these funds, once they're accessed, for the betterment of the North Korean people and for humanitarian purposes and that's what everybody expects that they will be used for.

                  QUESTION: So one of the most difficult way to track that and to see how the money's used is to actually take it out in cash?

                  MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Nicholas, I think it -- once it gets into North Korea, it is difficult to track --

                  QUESTION: In any way, okay.

                  MR. MCCORMACK: They don't have the most robust tracking mechanisms in North Korea, but that does not mean that we don't expect to hold North Korea to that pledge, we as well as others in the six-party talks.

                  QUESTION: (Inaudible.) You don't have a problem with them taking it out in cash? Is that what you're --

                  MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we have done what we are going to do on this issue. There is --

                  QUESTION: (Inaudible) discussion if you had a problem if they take it out in cash?

                  MR. MCCORMACK: As I said, any of the technical arrangements about how the North Koreans access their accounts is going to be up to the North Koreans and their bankers to work out. It's not a matter in which we're going to place ourselves in the middle. It's for them to work out, not for us.

                  QUESTION: So you have no problem if the North Koreans are okay with it and Stanley Au is okay with it, that -- you have no problem with that?

                  MR. MCCORMACK: I think I gave you an answer.

                  QUESTION: Well, but you're not really saying it straightforward.

                  MR. MCCORMACK: Well, if you'd like to stand up here and answer for me, you can, but I've given you the answer I'm going to. No, that's what you usually do, Matt.

                  QUESTION: I'll do that.

                  MR. MCCORMACK: No, that's what you usually do, Matt. (Laughter.) Make sure I have -- something to play on both sides, (inaudible).


            •  Didja Know... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LIsoundview, TrueBlueDem

              You can tell Richardson is breaking into the first tier now that the supporters of other candidates are starting to make defamatory conjectures about him. Richardson has foreign policy experience, the majority opinion on Iraq, and experienced-based economic centrism in his favor. Not everyone's cup of tea, I understand, but it's a recipe that makes for one hell of a strong candidate, especially for those of whose positions fall somewhere in between Clinton and Edwards.

        •  After 8 years of Bus (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          frandor55, boofdah, CenterLeft

          we need two things above all else in the White House-a grown up and a diplomat. All four of our candidates meet the first standard.  But Richardson shines among them for the second.  That is why people are swinging in his direction.  (Including me.  This is my 2nd straight month voting for Bill.

          "There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country." Prince Harry

          by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:02:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Richardson Now Top VP Candidate.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Steven R, boofdah

            ....Along with Jim Webb (D Senate). Richardson as VP candidtate would deliver New Mexico and put CO, AZ and NV as very strong possibilities.

            'It's deja vu all over again"-Yogi Berra

            by frandor55 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:13:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Richardson (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              frandor55, boofdah

              will deliver NM for sure, even if he is on the 2nd slot.  

              "There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country." Prince Harry

              by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:40:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Remember the "Warren Christopher Rule" (0+ / 0-)

              from the Gore 2000 campaign.

              "You don't put someone next in line for the presidency whose only qualification is that he has has recently been elected United States Senator" (or words to that effect).

              That applied to John Edwards ('way back in 2000), and it definitely applies to Obama today and definitely also to Jim Webb as potential VP prospects.

              Now Edwards and Hillary both have completed six-year terms in the U.S. Senate, and each has acquired significant political experience since that time.

              Richardson of course has broad experience in at the cabinet level and in foreign policy, including at the U.N. (Remember the UN?).  Also, as VP nominee he would fire up the hispanic vote.  We wouldn't even have to dance the Macarena this time!

              Certainly no-one (even Obama) should be considered for the presidency of the U.S. with less than one term in the Senate on his resume'!

          •  And remember Spider.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BOBAUBIN com

            In the General Elections, the Independents are who swing the vote either way.  I voted for Richardson too, this time.

        •  At least some of the Richardson vote (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          may be like teacherken's and BTD's support for Vilsack, more of a "thank you" reward for good behavior rather than an actual statement of "I'm supporting this person for the foreseeable future."  In some ways I think "Richardson" is a weigh station as Gore-backers and Clark-backers move from Other, to No Clue, and, in many cases, ending with Edwards.

  •  Hillary, still winning the "netroots primary" (12+ / 0-)

    Her campaigns words, not mine.

    •  Hilary got slammed in NY magazine this week (13+ / 0-)

      HUGE article on Obama with HUGE photo of his rascally smiling mug. The Insiders still think it's just HRC and Obama. . . and I can't wait until Iowa to see Edwards surprise the "experts".

      •  Iowa? (6+ / 0-)

        What if Hillary and/or Obama can solidify their support with the African American community in California, New York, and South Carolina?  Could this dampen a win in Iowa and/or New Hamshire?

        Wouldn't it be cool if African Americans had the opportunity to decide the Democratic president for once?

        •  Win Iowa and you get TONS of free media (7+ / 0-)

          and momentum

          and people thinking "I want to vote for the guy/gal who is winning".

          It somebody has momentum coming out of January, and all the free media that generates, that's going to be worth the equivalent of a LOT of campaign loot.

          BTW: California is utterly massive, as is NY. No way HRC or Obama are going to be able to blanket all those media markets. . . it would bankrupt them.

          Hey, I would love for NY to be able to decide things, and I have no great love for Iowa/NH/NV/SC. . . I'm just talking what I see as the realistic, hardnosed scenario.

          •  But I don't know squat. It's going to be a crazy (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cosbo, Yoshimi, nightsweat, jct

            January and five days of Februrary 2008.

          •  I heard one woman say the other day... (8+ / 0-)

            "I'm not voting for Hillary, I don't like her.  What's that fella's name whose wife has cancer?  Yeah, I'm voting for him."

            This is how MOST Americans make their voting decisions, spur of the moment and uninformed.  Forget about US, we're the exception.

            So, if you win Iowa, what gets planted in people's head is "Winner."  "Winner."

            One man with courage makes a majority
            - Andrew Jackson

            by chuckles1 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:42:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My point is (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              highacidity, pioneer111

              are there groups in our country who could care less what the people in Iowa decide?

              Lets say Edwards wins Iowa.  Even with the hype of the win, do you think a majority of African Americans will fall in line and vote for him in California and New York?

              Just wondering.  

              •  It is a guess this year (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Yoshimi, jct

                because we just don't know how moving up the primaries will work.

                You may be making a good guess, but until we get closer to the primaries there won't be good polls. We don't know how the candidates will have to campaign, or be able to campaign for the big states.

                I think the campaigns will be looking a new strategies.

                It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

                by pioneer111 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:13:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Like I said above Yoshimi. (0+ / 0-)

                Hillary and Obama will compete for and split the Black vote down the middle.

              •  They are a small minority of Democrats (0+ / 0-)

                In New York and California, the only two Feb 5 states that count, blacks make up a small minority. New York could be interesting. Hillary hasn't exactly bent over backwards to help NY Democrats, but has scratched just enough backs to make it hard for prominent Democrats here to endorse someone else. Only if she loses momentum early will the rats start abandoning the mother ship. I can't imagine California being favorable to Hillary. They prefer more iconoclastic figures like Obama, Arnold and Reagan - not triangulating, machine driven apparatchicks like Hillary. Plus, they owe her nothing.

                If Obama and Hillary split CA and NY, things really could get interesting. Only then do I see the black Democrats breaking any ties. But apart from SC, I don't see the fight over the black vote to be all that decisive to the early primaries. And even the result in SC won't have enough time to sink in before the Feb 5 bonanza!

            •  Mother voted for Edwards. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              My Mother voted for Edwards in the 2004 Dem primary.

              She had voted for Bush in 2000.

              Just a little example of Edwards' wide appeal & reach.

        •  I think women will decide the primary, actually (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jxg, Yoshimi, heartofblue, martydd

          That is an interesting proposition Yoshimi, but with 60% of Democratic primary voters being women, and with Hillary doing very well among women, I think they will tip the primary in her favor.

          Most political "blogosphere" members are men, so that is why there is a radical disconnect between blog polls and real-world polls.

          Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

          by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:36:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Read an Article Over The Weekend (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Berkeley Vox

            Hilliary is playing up the women thing big time and it is selling to young and old.

            She is still the prohibitive favorite based on her experience in both the Governor's Mansion and the WH. And for some reason she is coming across as 'The Adult' among the leaders.

            The only one who really challenges her in 'The Adult' category is Richardson. He also trumps her or at least matches her in experience also.

            He could be the dark horse in this race who steadily moves up in the pack and takes the race by a nose in the end.

            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

            by talex on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:45:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hillary won't (4+ / 0-)

            win a single state, not even New York, and you can write that down.

            •  LOL, she's ahead in 32 of 34 states (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              and is ahead by a wide margin in California, Penn, NJ, and Florida, which is where most Dems live.

              Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

              by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:23:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i see a righteous bet here between (0+ / 0-)

                mr. "write that down" and mr. "LOL"...what sort of odds are you willing to give, LOL?

                Proud graduate of George Jones University

                by memofromturner on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:51:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  $100 says Hillary is next Prez, vs. anyone u pick (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Okay, I'll bite :)  You pick a candidate, I pick a candidate.  $100 bet, donated to charity/cause of the winner's choice.  You get to pick any candidate, either Dem or Repub.  If Hillary is elected President, I win; if your candidate is elected, you win.  If neither wins, it's a wash.

                  Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

                  by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:59:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Bev, I would take that bet (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cosbo, Shahryar

                    except that if I lose, I'm going to need that $100 as part of my getaway loot to flee the country with :)

                  •  Oooh, the candidate of inevitability, I'm scared! (0+ / 0-)

                    Hmm, pretty interesting. Hillary backers are still clinging to the "I'd bet money on her winning" line, a variant of the "she's the candidate of inevitability" line. Everyone else is supposed to be intimidated by the magnitude of her machine and avoid the appearance of Democratic disloyalty by lining up behind her right now, rather than later (i.e. after her machine rolls to its unstoppable primary triumph).

                    Well, I'm sure that has some perverse psychological pull for some people: In the face of perceived inevitability, it empowers us to feel like we willingly chose the inevitable thing. I know that makes no sense, but sometimes, human psychology makes no sense.

                    Unfortunately for Hillary, this inevitability line is becoming harder and harder to defend. Obama's funraising numbers have made us wonder about Hillary's machine, and campainging started early enough that both he and Edwards have a chance to put together mighty campaigns of their own. She may be ahead now, but what can she offer to democrats who defect to her camp? How can she ryle them up in a way that Obama and Edwards can't? The real question is only this: Can she keep her own supporters from jumping ship? The answer to that is "maybe". But it's certainly nothing like inevitable.

                    Your bet only makes sense because it's hard to guess to whom Hillary defectors will defect. But I bet even you won't now take even odds on Hillary vs Another Democrat for president! That sheen of inevitability is wearing thin!

              •  Hillary is a loser. (0+ / 0-)

                Hillary will lose the same amount of the male vote based on her gender that she gains of the female vote based on her gender.

                That is, just as many men will vote against Hillary strictly due to her gender as those women who will vote for Hillary strictly due to her gender.

                I also think that the whole gender-based voting thing is overhyped. If a woman hates Hillary's Iraq position, then that woman is NOT gonna vote for Hillary just to strike a blow for womenhood.

                I also believe that just as many Dem women as Dem men find Hillary to be, well, as viscerally unpleasant as fingernails on a chalkboard.

                Hillary will not only lose, she will also cause us to lose the House and Senate in 2008.

                That is because Hillary is the one & only thing that can rouse & rally the otherwise dormant Bush base in 2008.

                As for your poll numbers, Joe Lieberman was also leading at this same point in time in 2003; such means nothing.

          •  The debates are going to decisive (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            citizen53, Iddybud, area 51

            People are going to be attracted to who has the strongest message.

            •  I'm afraid that Americans are so mistrustful (0+ / 0-)

              that identity politics will hold sway this election which to me is sad and risky, i.e., the debates will be seen through a many prisms.

            •  The debates will destroy Hillary. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cosbo, Quinton

              Hillary will come across in the debates as shrill, whiny, nasal, aloof, and cold.

              She is Mrs. Freeze.

              My comment has nothing to do with Hillary's gender; Hillary is just a viscerally unpleasant person who cannot even fake warmth & empathy.

              I believe that inauthentic is the right word here.

          •  doing very well among women (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annefrank, jct

            Do you have a cite for that?  NPR had a story recently that indicated only white women liked her.

            What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell

            by RequestedUsername on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:53:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure women are that narrow in outlook (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jct, zigeunerweisen, area 51

            I think, based on my experience, that women may be charmed by the idea of a woman running, but their interest is more on the issues and the individual.  Perhaps more so than men.

            •  A friend of mine was all for Hillary because she (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nasarius, Quinton, area 51

              is a woman.  But, once I talked to her about the issues.  And once Hillary and Obama had the horrible responses the the question about if gays are immoral.  She switched to beign a strong Edwards supporter.

              •  Hillary is anti-gay now?? (0+ / 0-)

                What a total flip-flopping phony!

                •  stop (0+ / 0-)

                  "Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."


                  Are you intentionally trying to make Edwards supporters look bad with your incessant posts, or do you just not realize how petty and mean they sound?

                •  What an idjit. (0+ / 0-)

                  Teacher's Lounge opens every Saturday between 11 am and noon. It's not just for teachers.

                  by rserven on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:54:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Hillary has an excellent record on women's issues (0+ / 0-)

              She has done much to promote women's equality. Her campaign's appeal to women includes some strong policy proposals: shoring up equal work/equal pay laws, expanding the Family Medical Leave Act, passing universal paid sick leave legislation, getting UHC, calls for universal childcare, an interesting proposal to provide support for "kinship care"---children orphaned by war who are raised by relatives, etc.

              Check it out:

          •  Pushing to make a selection I still come up w/o (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Love and Death, jxg, Yoshimi, heartofblue

            I too suspect that on DailyKos, since the field is big, talented, and somewhat undefined/undifferentiated still the early, consistent support for Edwards (who I like fine) smells like Identity Politics a la the blogospheric male majority (so artlessly on display last week - sorry, just had to get that in, but imho, it's there).

            •  nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

              I would choose Pelosi over Edwards if I could.

              Kossacks (male & female) are first & foremost issues people, and Obama has been trashing himself terribly on the issues.

            •  Identity politics? Nah - just pragmatism (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              kos people are Democrats. They support progressives, and they support conservative Democrats, too.  Herseth was rather conservative.  And female, too, no?

              And kos people want to win.
              That's why they are avoiding Hillary like the plague, because 50% of Americans won't even consider voting for her (Harris poll).

              So kos people want to win with Edwards.  He's at 44% in a crowded field here.

              That's why kos-ians tend to ignore the sort of candidates like Obama and Hillary that make it to the cover of Newsweek magazine.

              Because if we go with yet another frost-belt Democrat again, it's hello "President McCain."

          •  I was at a "Women for Obama" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            kick-off yesterday.  I think the strategy is smart on Obama's part and you'll probably hear/see more from the group.

            Likewise, I was at a "Lawyers for Obama" Obama fundraiser a couple weeks ago but didn't make the connection at the time that Obama was trying to tap into Edwards' base.

        •  Yoshimi. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          philgoblue, AUBoy2007

          The problem with your theory is that Hillary and Obama are competing like dogs for the same pool of Black votes, which both Hillary and Obama think they own lock stock and barrel, you know, what with Obama being the Black candidate and what with Bill Clinton being the first virtual Black president, etc.

          What if that pool of Black votes splits right down the middle for Hillary and Obama?

      •  Kos Didn't Say Hilliary - Netroots (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        He said:

        whether that'll have any impact in the real world (where Hillary is still at the top).

        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

        by talex on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:37:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  they're riffing (0+ / 0-)

          on a line one of Clinton's spokespeople gave recently, where they looked at how much she raised "online" and said Clinton was the netroots' favorite.  

          Think you live in a free country? Try forming a union.

          by exiled texan on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:19:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cosbo, Quinton

            I misread that.

            Some people do not realize this from yesterdays numbers but when not counting the $2300 donations Edwards actually has a higher percentage of non-$2300 contributions of his total than Obama does.

            Yes Obama raised more - but percentage wise Edwards actually gets a higher percentage of his money from no-$2300 donations.

            Just interesting - and yeah - a little too 'inside baseball'.

            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

            by talex on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:33:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I guess (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      funluvn1, lams712

      the netroots is larger than mydd and dailykos?

      maybe they are polling redstate posters?

    •  She's winning the "women's" primary (0+ / 0-)

      60% of Democratic primary voters are women.  Women overwhelmingly support Hillary.  Members of the online / political / blogosphere are overwhelmingly male.  Hence, the big difference between "reality-based" polls and online ones.

      Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

      by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:37:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama edges out (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citizen53, cosbo, jct, Quinton, Berkeley Vox

        Hillary and even Rudy in the Wall Street Primary.

        It's official, now, Obama is Wall Street's favorite candidate.

        I wonder why.

        •  Maybe . . . (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jxg, Yoshimi, snout, speck tater, Berkeley Vox

          . . . because a lot of people who work on Wall Street are progressives, regardless of the fact that their jobs are in the business world, and they like to support other progressives?

          •  What some supporters don't understand (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            is that running against something is a losing position to be in.

            That in my opinion is why Dean did so badly.  Even the Republicans are starting to understand that their candidates have to run for something.

            Hopefully Democrats catch on quicker than the Republicans.

          •  Yeah, I'm sure that's why (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Iddybud, MeanBoneII, nasarius, jct, Quinton, area 51

            ...because a lot of people who work on Wall Street are progressives.

            Then why aren't they giving $$$ to the most progressive candidate? Come on, Adam B, you can do a better job of explaining away his support from Wall Street than to say it's because Wall Street is packed with lefties.

            The shame for Obama is that he doesn't need the support of K-Street corporate execs or Wall Street, he's doing so well among small donors, so why is he courting them? Is it because his policy positions don't clash with their interests?

            We already know that coporate executive are helping Obama to "refine" his policy positions?

            Robert Wolf, CEO of UBS Americas (UBS ) and a supporter of Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.), says his candidate understands commerce and is promoting trade agreements that benefit the U.S. "both as a consumer and a provider of goods and services.

            But I'm sure Robert Wolf is one of those lefties that Wall Street is known for, so, no need to worry.

            •  "the most progressive candidate" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jxg, Yoshimi

              David, people can reasonably disagree on which progressive candidate best fits his or her own worldview.  You've got your views, and I have mine.

              The fact is, if you saw my diary yesterday, that no matter how well one does with small donors, they're still small, and one $2300 check takes ninety-two $25 donors to equal it.

              Finally, let's not forget that when he did have to be responsive to constituents, Edwards voted for most favored nation status with China, and voted against Paul Wellstone's amendment which would have required "that the President certify to Congress that the People's Republic of China has responded to inquiries regarding certain people who have been detained or imprisoned and has made substantial progress in releasing from prison people incarcerated for organizing independent trade unions.", as well as an additional amendment requiring the President to verify China's commitment to both religious and labor freedom, and a third Wellstone religious freedom amendment.

              •  True, but... (0+ / 0-)

                Even though it takes 92 $25 donors to equal a $2,300 check, it only takes one $25 donor to equal a $2,300 donor in the voting booth.  Money is useful and necessary, but votes are the only currency that matters in the end.

              •  i'm not suggesting (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nasarius, majcmb1, Quinton

                that Obama not hit up rich people--you have to, as a pol, Edwards does. I'm saying that Obama is making a choice:

                • to woo Wall Street and to include Wall Street execs in the formation of his agenda
                • to cultivate a network of K-Street corporate lobbyists, led by Tom Dashcle
                • to solicit and accept money from lobbyists spouses even if the money comes from the lobbyists' bank account

                Maybe all this fits your worldview; it doesn't fit mine.

                These are choices Obama is making and they are not choices he needs to make in order to be competitive; on the contrary, in the long run they will make him less competitive because it allows people like to me--and, more important, other campaigns--to point out the dishonesty of his claim to be running a new kind of campaign. Even worse, should he emerge as the nominee, he'll be hamstrung in his ability to draw a distinction between him and whatever plutocrat the GOP nominates.

                As for your stuff about Edwards, all people can do is point to stuff he did years ago--which is fair game--but it highlights the way he's running this time around, how he's grown and learned. Indeed, he made some of the mistakes Obama is making now.

            •  great. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jxg, Quinton

              So Obama is now also a NAFTA type?

              Screw Obama!

              Well there it is, pure DLC, pure Lieberman.

          •  How is Obama a "progressive"? (0+ / 0-)

            Harry Reid is more progressive than Obama!

        •  This is Hillary's base! (0+ / 0-)
        •  That's very interesting, David. (0+ / 0-)

          I will have to read that later today.

        •  Interesting but disagree it's what you say... (0+ / 0-)

          To me, they're all in the same ballpark.

          Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ran ahead of New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on their home turf, raising cash from the biggest investment banks on Wall Street.

          Obama raised $479,209 from employees at the banks in the first quarter, according to Federal Election Commission filings. That was better than Giuliani, a Republican who collected $473,442. Clinton, Obama's Democratic rival, raised $447,625. The figures are based on employers listed by donors; in some cases, the names are missing or incomplete.

      •  Wow. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        benny05, kck, zigeunerweisen, speck tater

        You've got one speed:  Spin Cycle.

        Impressive.  Quite Impressive.

      •  I'm a woman in NY. (7+ / 0-)

        I don't support her for many reasons. I like her as my senator. That's it. Hillary has absolutely no vision.

        •  The audacity of reality-based politics (0+ / 0-)

          That is her vision.  Obama says he can deliver universal health care by the end of his first time?  The enthusiasm is respectable, but let's be real, there is NO WAY anyone can deliver that in just 4 years.  Hillary's plan for universal coverage by the end of her second term is much more realistic.  That's the kind of vision and intelligence I want in a president.

          Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

          by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:25:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I disagree (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fumie, AUBoy2007, Chilean Jew, speck tater

            If universal healthcare is ever going to be passed in this country it will be quickly, probably as part of some "first 100 days" type of program. There are too many entrenched interests that will muster their forces to work against it in a protracted struggle. Unless a democratic president works with a democratic congress and is riding the glow of a recent election (think 2008!), it just won't happen.

            •  For sure (0+ / 0-)

              it would probably have to be done in the first 100 days, under a Democratic Congress, and riding high after getting rid of bush. The usual honeymoon the press gives the incoming administration would also contribute to it. Not to mention that by the second term, any president would have difficulty passing such a controversial program...she'd/he'd be a lame duck after all.

              Saying all this, I'm not sure Hillary would be the best one to capitalize on the above scenario. We know how hated she is by the MSM, particularly by FuxNoixe. But add on ABC (who had that 9-11 hatchet job on last year) and any of the other right-wing dud-its and she has little chance, IMO anyway.

              It isn't shameful to vote your own self-interest instead of the interests of multi-national corporations--iceman

              by fumie on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:27:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No, no, no, no, no my child... (0+ / 0-)

              ...This is EXACTLY what the Clintons thought back in their first administration.  The insurance company lobby is absolutely massive, and there is NO WAY you can get health care done in the first 4 years, as Obama has promised, MUCH LESS the first 100 days.  This is the kind of empty-headed campaign pandering we don't need.

              Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

              by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:56:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Except it isn't (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, jct, zigeunerweisen, Quinton

        54% of Iowa caucus voters were women in 2004; 54% in the NH primary, etc.

        I don't know where you get your 60% from.  

      •  Just wait. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Just wait until all those women see Hillary in the debates in all her shrill aloof ice queen glory.

        Most normal people are not paying any attention now; just us political junkies are.

  •  His trip to N Korea (11+ / 0-)

    Re-opened my eyes on his appeal.

    He'd be a real heavyweight against McCain.  And he'd eat Guiliani for breakfast (REAL Nat Security experience).  

    I still like Obama and Edwards, but I'd love to see a 4 person race-- that would be a great debate.

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:07:24 AM PDT

    •  I would love the debates to be... (10+ / 0-)


      Sorry to the rest of you, but I'd like each to have more time to answer, and to be challenged when they spew talking points.

      One man with courage makes a majority
      - Andrew Jackson

      by chuckles1 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:43:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  i'm right there with ya (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frandor55, BOBAUBIN com

      i'm not committed, to richardson, but for now, i like what he's been saying and doing in the foreign policy arena, so i'm rewarding his campaign.

      mydd straw poll vote: 1. other (gore) 2. unsure 3. richardson 4. obama 5. edwards

      by colorless green ideas on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:45:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  he knows how to do diplomacy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      unlike everyone in the Bush administration. Heck, even nasty Richard Perle admitted on Wolf Blitzer's show Sunday that the Bush administration doesn't know how to negotiate or handle diplomacy with other nations. He actually said that Democrats like Sen. Webb and others (like the Iraq Study Group and Baker/Hamilton Commission) who say that the US should sit down with Iran and Syria to discuss Iraq and the middle east need to tell the Bush administration what to say, because they don't know how to do it.

      BLITZER: It's not just Senator Webb. It's the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton Commission. They also said virtually the same thing. Start a dialogue. Talk to -- you served in the Reagan administration. Even though the president, Ronald Reagan, called the Soviets the "evil empire," he spoke to them.

      PERLE: Well, we negotiated from a position of strength. Now, you are talking about going to the Iranians, going to the Syrians in a weak position.

      BLITZER: But the United States is a superpower; they are not.

      PERLE: Well, they happen to be manipulating the instruments of terror in Iraq to our disadvantage. And the idea that we are going to talk them out of that, I think, is just nonsense.

      But it seems to me, incumbent upon Senator Webb and others who propose that, to tell us what we should say. What are the talking points? What are we going to promise Ahmadinejad if he reverses his current policy of fueling the insurgency and joins with us in trying to dampen the insurgency?

      (my emphasis added)
      full transcript from "Late Edition" 15-April-2007

      I found that to be an astonishing admission by the neocon architect.

      I haven't chosen which candidate to put my support for in the primary, but Richardson has a lot of real-world experience I find impressive.

      I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

      by land of the free on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:52:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Edwards is still surging (13+ / 0-)

    Looks like support is solidifying. Most of his gains seem to have come from "Other" and "No F'ing Clue".

    "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

    by CaptUnderpants on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:08:09 AM PDT

  •  Edwards is stronger than people (21+ / 0-)

    realize. It isn't just a progressive blog thing either.

    I am in Clinton/Obama country (IL) and everyone I know would proudly vote for Edwards in the big election. And I know folks from all age groups, ideology, and so on too.

    If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.--Adlai E. Stevenson

    by vassmer on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:08:46 AM PDT

  •  Richardson improves when the focus is on foreign (11+ / 0-)

    policy.  I suspect that he won't do as well when the focus is on domestic issues.

    •  Very true and a mediator mindset. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cosbo, jct, jsamuel, lams712, Bridge Master

      People need to examine his foreign policy successes.  He is a mediator and an excellent one.  But his record tends to show shifts in positions as the public opinion changes.  He was for the war in 2003 and 2004, but has changed his rhetoric now.  For a diplomat this is good, but I don't see it being positive for a president.

      Also he is a centrist on economic policy.

      It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

      by pioneer111 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:13:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "centrist" (9+ / 0-)

        I call that a corporate Democrat.  "Centrist" makes it sound like he is where most of the American people are.  But, most people think corporations have too much power, and so-called "centrists" give them more.  It is all in the framing.

      •  No candidate is perfect on every position. (5+ / 0-)

        Richardson has the strongest resume, the fewest enemies, and has true presidential stature.  Team him with Wes Clark as V.P. and it would be a Democratic landslide.

        Of course, I still believe whichever Dem wins the primaries will be the next president.

        First they will ignore you, then they will laugh at you, then they will fight you, then you will win. Mohandas Gandhi

        by Bridge Master on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:20:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  'Getting the job done mindset' is how I'd like to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueDem, CenterLeft

        call Richarson's style.

        He was sort of supportive of the war before it began but wasn't an obsessive hawk of it like Lieberman and Edwards, was talking along the Kerry/Edwards lines during 2004, neither of which I approve. But he now calls for complete withdrawal from Iraq. I think his record on the war is not the most desirable, but it is  significantly  better than Edwards' on all counts.

        On economic policy, his website says:

        Richardson on Jobs/Economy

        Our next President must be able to make our economy work for the middle class and start creating good paying jobs again. In New Mexico, one of the poorest states in the nation, we've created 84,000 new jobs, many of them high tech jobs in industries like renewable energy, aerospace, and communications. We've done that with innovative approaches like a tax credit for companies who create good paying jobs, tax incentives for start up high tech businesses, and targeting job creation in rural areas. We've done it by making a real investment in public education, paying our teachers more but tying those increases to tough standards, and by using our resources more wisely, with less money for school administration and more in the classroom. And we did it with tax cuts, the right tax cuts, and with a balanced budget. Getting back to a balanced budget is a big part of sustained economic growth, too, the kind of growth that creates good jobs and actually reduces poverty. And that's what I'll do as President. We need to work with business, that's where the jobs are created after all, instead of engaging in ideological warfare, and we need the right kind of tax incentives, not just tax cuts for the wealthy and income transfers from the middle class to big corporations.

        So, he is towing the Clinton/Gore economy line on this, which as you know, had strong results, especially coming off horible  Reagan-Bush years:

        Clinton-Gore economic accomplishments

        • 22 million net new jobs
        • lowered unemployment from 7.5% to 4%
        • real wage growth of 6.8% (after adjusting to inflation)
        • turned record deficits into record surpluses
        • record low African American unemployment
        • lowered unemployment among Hispanics from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 5.4 percent in April 2000 (lowest rate on record)
        • lowest unemployment rate for women since 1953
        • increase in manufacturing jobs by 391 thousand
        • increase in IT jobs by 1 million (roughly half of which survived even the Bush's outsourced "economy")
        • a two-step minimum wage increase in 96/97 from $4.25 to $5.15
        • lowered poverty rate from 15.1% (1993) down to 11.8% (1999)

        Here is what Richardson says about healthcare, for readers' perusal.

    •  which domestic issues? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I think he can do about as well as any Democrat on them.

      Ever feel like you've been cheated?
      -Johnny Rotten

      by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:47:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is far from the truth... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BOBAUBIN com

      Richardson is a true progressive when it comes to domestic issues, with emphasis on PROGRESS....

      He has cut taxes for every single New Mexico citizen, made bold advances in social programs, has an impressive environmental record, is a leader in renewable energy development.  New Mexico is a member of the Kyoto agreement.  He also has been very progressive in stem cell research, medical marijuana, and many other health issues.

      Job growth is up, wages are up, clean energy is being USED here.  

      Richardson has domestic goods, and foriegn policy goods.  I defy any other candidate to TOP THAT.

      Richardson Brings Hope...and Hope is the American Dream

      by liberaltruthsayer on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:41:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The numbers surprise me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, lams712, alasmoses

    I thought Obama would have more support -- and Kucinich w/ only 2%??  I thought his Iraq stance would garner some more support.

    Hey Markos -- that's horrible you have a new (unhappy) baby AND a wife sick enough to be in the hospital.  Hope she's also home and recovering and that you get some sleep (and have some help for the wee ones)

    •  Am I reading them wrong? nt (0+ / 0-)
    •  This site's membership is solidly pro-Edwards (10+ / 0-)

      and will be until 2008.  Obama isn't a big favorite of the netroots establishment figures.

      •  "establishment figures?" (0+ / 0-)

        What does that mean?

      •  isn't "netroots establishment" an oxymoron? (7+ / 0-)

        and even if it isn't, aren't these polls of the netroots period?

        there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

        by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:11:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Correction: Membership has turned pro-Edwards (9+ / 0-)

        as you can tell clearly from previous polls.

        Obama's support has been very steady and consistently 25%+ so he is obviously a big favorite for many here.

        "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

        by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:13:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I would call your comment a (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jxg, Yoshimi, worried dem

          'clarification' since you add information to my post rather than correcting it regarding Edwards's support here.

          Obama's support has flatlined here.  It'll probably be down in the next poll.

          •  It's not hip to support the favorite (5+ / 0-)

            Every tick Obama goes up in national polls will equal a negative tick here.

            •  Awful cynical, there (3+ / 0-)

              So you're saying that "hipness" defines a candidate's attractiveness to the netroots?  I would hope that you would give us more credit than that.

              •  I don't (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jxg, Yoshimi, NewJerz

                I'm not sure I'd condemn the netroots on the same basis, but I don't give us much credit.

                At least as far as the candidates go, the level of debate here is atrocious.  Folks here tend to act as if the candidates are magicians, and the very fact that they say they are in favor of something makes it plausible.

                Take the debate over who favors the fastest timetable out of Iraq.  Or the debate over the fastest timetable towards universal healthcare. Might as well be a debate over cookies and milk for all Americans.

                Edwards rules here because he panders to the netroots.  We like our rings kissed.  That's the long and short of it.

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

              you won't need to hit spin class tonight.  Got your full workout in right there.

              •  Might as well do a full week's workout (0+ / 0-)

                Lately, this site has been full of amateur pundits parsing statements and repeating rumor and innuendo to reinforce opinions they'd long ago formed and galvanized. Obama never says anything and when he does he "repeats right wing talking points", whatever the hell that means. Edwards should continue to be raked over the coals for a nearly 5 year old vote when a vast majority of his constituents (as well as the rest of the nation) favored it. And so on. Repeating the same factoids for at least 3 months now over and over again to justify the decision they made months ago which and will never be reviewed.

                We'll see a bit of movement as Clark and Gore followers lose heart. That's about it.

                For as much as we like to talk shit about the MSM, we do a remarkable job of aping them.  

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

              But see, Howard Dean, c. 2003.

              Up here and up national were, IIRC, directly correlated.

              But arguably, Ho Ho was still a media "underdog" which made continued support here "hip."

              It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

              by MRL on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:21:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I think it will hold steady (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yoshimi, Geekesque, pioneer111, ShadowSD

            While he isn't the site favorite he has loyal and consistent support among those that support him from what I have observed on the site.

          •  a lot of people here are very open to obama (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rick, cosbo, gropo, nasarius, lump1, fancy chicken

            But either because he's not being loud enough or he's not being clear enough, people just aren't finding out where he stands. Yeah, the broad nuances are out there, and even the usual stuff on the campaign websites.

            Edwards is ahead of the curve on stating clear and detailed stances on everything, and has a killer team of supporters broadcasting every positive message. The other campaigns could learn something from him -- it's actually not hard to do, yet Obama isn't doing it.

            (I sincerely wish he would. Clark too, even, if he's planning on running. If they don't, I might end up supporting Edwards, if only by default.)

            there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

            by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:39:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Very true. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rick, danthrax, nasarius, jct, Quinton

              I was initially in Obama's camp but got dragged away by his inaction (relative to Edwards) and anti-Democratic framing. It is not out of the question that I could be ruled back if he doesn't continue to repeat this patern of behavior.

              •  "anti-Democratic framing" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Using a phras like this is a clear sign you've been on the blogsphere too long.  It is an abstraction.  A non-issue.  

                Anyhow - Obama's not framing against the Democrats.  He's rebranding them.  That's what someone should have done long ago.

                If you think Obama's framing is so problematic, ask yourself why Lakoff singles him out as a star pupil.  

            •  The problem (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Is that Edwards is stating clear and positive stances designed to win a primary - but the same stances will render him almost unelectable in a general election.

              He is already on record (film exists) as saying he will raise taxes in order to fund universal healthcare.  While I agree with him in principle in his desire to do so, those words will be crippling in a general election.  I honestly don't think he can win.  That's not spin for Obama, nor is it concern trollery.  I really don't think any candidate can win after such a statement.  History bears this out.

              Obama's playing his cards much smarter.  He's playing for the general election.  He's not giving the GOP specifics that they can start propagandizing against until he has to.

              Obama's going to win this thing - at least he will if Edwards doesn't split the vote and deliver it to Hillary.  But Edwards has little chance in the primary (unless it is a Dkos primary) and less in the general.  That's my read of the situation.  I'm sure an army of Edwards supporters will be more than happy to tell me why I'm wrong.

              •  here's a lesson from 2004 (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rick, JSCram3254, AUBoy2007

                The Republicans will come at you and attack you and re-brand you no matter how safe you play it.

                The answer is to stop playing it safe. Hit em back. Hard.

                All our candidates are electable. But only if we give them the political support that allows them to hit em back. They're not going to fight the Republican party alone, and they can't.

                Giuliani, Romney, and McCain will have trouble holding both wings of their party, AND appealing to moderates. We have every advantage.

                If we lose, it's not our candidate's fault. It's ours, as the bottom off the pyramid, as the infrastructure.

                there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:46:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  False dichotomy (0+ / 0-)

                  Just because the Republicans will attack "no matter how safe you play it", does not make it smart to do their jobs for them.

                  We do have every advantage right now - but we can still blow it.  I submit to you that going public about raising taxes is not the same as "hitting back hard".  It is giving back one of the advantages we currently have (as people are starting to see the GOP as fiscally irresponsible).    

                  If we lose, it is our fault.  One way we can lose is to chose a candidate with a message that will not resonate with undecided voters.  Right now it looks like undecided voters love Edwards, but once the GOP starts hammering on his promise to raise taxes (not to mention branding him as a flip-flopper on the war) - much of that positivity will vanish.  

                  I say he is unelectable.  Unless the DNA of the American people changes between now and 2008, they will not choose a President who is on record about raising their taxes.

                  •  repealing bush's tax cuts doesn't hurt us at all (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Listen, if you think Edwards will be fiscally irresponsible, we'll have to agree to disagree. But I'm pretty sure -- barring "I don't know how to pay for them" or "I intend to raise taxes on everybody" -- health care is not going to make you unelectable.

                    We almost won on raising taxes on people making over $200k in 2004. We lost on clarity of message. If we cry about "they're right he will raise taxes!! oh god!!" we'll lose. If we fight back hard and say "Bush's tax cuts have done nothing to help this country and everything to hurt it", we'll win. It's that simple.

                    there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                    by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:35:09 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  These words are going to be killers (0+ / 0-)

                      "The bottom line is we're asking everybody to share in the responsibility of making health care work in this country. Employers, those who are in the medical insurance business, employees, the American people _ everyone will have to contribute in order to make this work," the 2004 vice presidential nominee said.

                      "Yes, we'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a health care plan that costs anywhere from $90 (billion) to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source," the former North Carolina senator said.

                      He may very well intend to limit taxation to a rollback of the Bush tax cuts, but he has armed the GOP with ammo that will be nearly impossible to defuse.

                      •  "i voted for it before i voted against it" (0+ / 0-)

                        Name a candidate who you think won't give them a quote to play off of, and I'll show you a voter who over-estimates the power of a candidate to solve our electoral woes.

                        Listen, every candidate will give the Republicans ammo. One quote out of context. One gaffe. One person loosely affiliated with the campaign. Every single candidate will have something the Republicans can riff off of.

                        Get over it.

                        Every single candidate is still electable, if we help get their UNDISTORTED message across. If we help them to not get swift-boated.

                        there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                        by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:06:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You seem to be missing the point (0+ / 0-)

                          There will always be ammo.  On this much, we agree.

                          But not all ammo is created equal.  Edwards handed them an uzi when he uttered those words.  The American people do not like taxes.  

                          As I said - I actually agree with his position.   But being right won't help matters.  This is a LOT worse than "I was for it before I was against it".  Doesn't seem like it now, because the Republicans aren't bothering with it now.  But I can guarantee you they will...

                      •  the dean scream? (0+ / 0-)

                        There's always ammo.

                        Stop worrying about how much ammo we give the Republican-distortion-machine and start wondering how much ammo we can give to our own candidates.

                        there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                        by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:07:59 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Not an "either/or" proposition (0+ / 0-)

                          When one of our candidates takes a position that can potentially lose us the White House, I take notice.  Putting your head in the sand won't make it go away.

                          Can you honestly tell me you think the greater electorate will be as casual about this as you are now when the ads on tv are reminding them of it 24 hours a day?

                          This ain't no Dean scream.  If you think it is, you are sadly mistaken.

                          •  the only way it will work is with distortion (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            That's my point. And they only get away with distortion if we let them get away with it.

                            They tried to pull the same thing on Kerry, and he kept on restating -- this is about repealing the tax cuts, and will only affect the richest 1-2% of people in the country.

                            What really stuck was the swift boat thing. Not because it was true. Not because Americans cared a whole lot more about his service than they did about his stance on taxes. But because we didn't hit back.

                            there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                            by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:24:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's not really true (0+ / 0-)

                            Those words don't require distortion.  He has taken a very politically unpopular position.  I admire him for doing so, but it is going tohurt him.

                            If they had direct quotes (and film) like that on Kerry, it would have made the swift boat thing look tiny.

                            Ask Walter Mondale.

                          •  by god, Edwards = Mondale? you give up too easily (0+ / 0-)

                            That's different from "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did." Mondale actually WAS going to raise taxes for most people.

                            Kerry allegedly voted to raise taxes 350 times. He kept hammering it home "I will not raise taxes on the middle class." That was one thing he was clear on.

                            The GOP shit won't stick to you unless you give in.

                            there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                            by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:43:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This isn't "GOP shit". (0+ / 0-)

                            You really don't seem to be getting it.  This isn't about giving up to the GOP.  This is about Edwards taking a position that will alienate the moderate swing voters that we need to elect a Democratic President.  

                            The GOP does not have to manipulate (they will of course, but they don't have to).  All they need to do is make sure everybody knows what he said.  All they have to do is show the film with Tim Russert.  He can try and dial it back by saying it is just about rolling back the Bush tax cuts, but he already said that "everyone will have to contribute in order to make this work".  

                            You really think that the American people will see that differently than what Mondale said?

                          •  this IS gop shit. (0+ / 0-)

                            here's the quote. you made me find it:

                            "Yes, we’ll have to raise taxes. The, the only way you can pay for a health care plan, from 90--that costs anywhere from $90 billion to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source. The revenue source for paying for the plan that I’m proposing is, is first we get rid of George Bush’s tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year."

                            That's WAY different from Walter Mondale. He LET it stick. He couldn't NOT make it stick: it was true.

                            The American people aren't stupid. But if you want them to get the truth, you actually have to communicate it to them. That was the failure in 2004.

                            Fortunately, there seems to be a lot more people on this site who are willing to work for that. And the candidates aren't going to just run and hide the second a swift boat comes along to distort their position.

                            there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                            by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:26:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          • isn't. (0+ / 0-)

                            He never says that he only plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts, he simply says that's where he'd start.  To make matters worse, he included weasel words about "everybody" needing to sacrifice to get it done.

                            I hate to break it to you - but no matter how hard we "fight", we're not going to be able to deflect the fallout from that.  

                          •  we should elect a giraffe (0+ / 0-)

                            That is honestly the only way you won't find at least one dangerous QUOTE.

                            We can fight dangerous quotes. The key is to fill the vapid right wing noise machine with accurate, memorable, and persuasive quotes. As far as I can tell, Edwards wants to repeal the tax cuts and close tax loopholes. That's not Walter Mondale by a long shot.

                            Find me a dangerous STANCE. There isn't a democratic candidate out there who is standing for something totally retarded.

                            there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                            by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:12:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's not just a dangerous quote (0+ / 0-)

                            It is a dangerous stance.  It represents a dangerous policy.  No matter what he says to clarify it, the fact that he repeated twice that "everyone" would have to contribute is not gonna go away.

                            You keep harping on the notion that anyone could have a "dangerous quote"  - but not all quotes are equal.  This one is a huge problem.

                          •  it's not a dangerous stance (0+ / 0-)

                            Because that's not what he stands for.

                            If he does stand for it, the same way that Mondale stood for it, then we'd have a problem.

                            No quote is so bad that it can't be recovered with strong communication. The dean scream. "I voted for it before I voted against it". They pale in comparison to the Bush gaffes, because the Bush gaffes are covered by a rabid support system, with people clarifying every damn remark for total safety.

                            That's what we need. Not a perfect candidate.

                            there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                            by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:24:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How do you know? (0+ / 0-)

                            He was the one who repeated "everybody" would have to contribute.  Why are you so sure that isn't meaningful?

                            I disagree that "no quote is so bad that it can't be recovered with strong communication".  I think some things are nuclear.  To my mond this is one of them.  He has stepped on the third rail of electoral gaffes.  Even if it is possible to overcome this, it is very much not preferable to have to overcome it.  Given this (though not for this reason alone) - I can't support Edwards in the primary.

                          •  i think you're making an issue out of nothing (0+ / 0-)

                            If it becomes a real stance about raising taxes on 'everyone', then it becomes something he can't recover from. Otherwise it's easy to clarify. Taxes on the rich just aren't a third rail.

                            But hey, your call.

                            there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                            by danthrax on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:11:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Perhaps we'll see... (0+ / 0-)

                            If he gets the nomination.  

                            I don't think it has to become any more than what it is to hurt him/us.  Hopefully we won't find out I was right.

              •  Take Stands, Contrast, Economic Populism (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                danthrax, AUBoy2007, Quinton

                Fight Back.

                That's the way to win, not wishy-washyness (see Kerry).

              •  The Democratic nominee will win in 08. Period. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                peace voter

                No matter who the Democrats nominate in 08, that will be our next president. He or she will beat any of the Republican candidates by a wide margin. Let's just accept this and stop 04ing ourselves with guesses about electability and voting while we hold our noses. We have at least four sure winners in our field.

                Which one do we pick? The one that will make us most proud to be Democrats. The one who, as president, will make us most proud to be Americans. That's the only question we should be asking.


                (Not saying it's an easy question, of course!)

                •  wrong-wrong-wrong (0+ / 0-)

                  History (since 1960) shows that the winner:

                  (A) will be from the southern, sun-belt half of the U.S. - from southern California in the west to Virginia in the east.

                  (B) could therefore be McCain, Richardson or Edwards.

                  Others may be nominated by their (respective) party - but will not win in November. Not since 1960 AND not without repeated demonstrations of this basic pattern.

                  NO EXCEPTIONS in forty-six (46) years!!

            •  Yes precisely (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              danthrax, Quinton

              Shifted my vote from Obama to Edwards this instance precisely for that reason.

              Obama's publicity engine has recently suffered from stalling and equivocation, Edwards' camp has pounced on issues with consistency like a finely tuned Porsche.

              Both would make excellent presidents, but i refuse to back someone apt to bend-over-and-lube-up for "Swiftboating 2k8"

              "George Bush is right in that there is an 'axis of evil', but it lies at the door of big business and government." Marcus Eoin, Boards of Canada

              by gropo on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:15:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Tired of this Ed vs. Obama Bullsh@t!! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Everyone wants to make a match of Edwards Vs. Obama, and it just doesn't make sense. They are both approaching this election from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT paths.

              Edwards, god bless him, is on his second frickin' campaign and has had 5 years to get his positions, policies, and rhetoric down.

              Obama is only on his first frickin' campaign, was wrapped in him hype while barely a senator, and so far should be frickin' applauded for managing a first campaign as successfuly and bump-free as he has.

              I don't recall Edwards' running out the gate for 2004 with the platform to die for. Sorry, maybe I'm wrong. He had to get vetted and take the puches just like everybody else, with gaffes and questionable quotes of his own.

              I admire him for doing what many have not done so well, which is learn from his mistakes, and become stronger from that experience.

              Obama has to play catch-up to a CLINTON, a political lifer and one-half of a power duo, and to Edwards, whose now a seasoned campaigner.

              OF COURSE, he doesn't have all his policies nailed down yet people, OF COURSE his rhetoric is still a little vageue. What the hell did you expect 3 mos. out the gate.

              If 6 months from now, it's still the same, then maybe, yeah, we can start tearing him down with some justification.

              What I admire him for is he is a fast learner and is doing a hell of a job all things considered.

              He deserves a lot of respect for that. They BOTH deserve a lot fo respect for how they've handled their respective paths.

              Tired of the b.s. E vs. O crap.


              •  geez, chill, i agree with you (0+ / 0-)

                Hence why I'm not about to jump down Obama's throat every time he seems vague. I figure the good policy stuff was going to happen in the fall.

                But at the same time, we shouldn't be surprised when candidates with tangible positions that people like start to build momentum. At least, it doesn't surprise me.

                Obama still has time to get back in this. He's definitely on par, maybe even better than Edwards in 2004. Problem is he needs to do better than Edwards (and everyone else) in 2008.

                there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:42:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  You should say "leveled off" (0+ / 0-)

            since "flatline" is generally understood to mean "dead," and that is not descriptive of Obama's campaign either on- or off-line.

            "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 Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:59:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Why do you think that is? (5+ / 0-)

        Do you think it's the message or the messenger?

        Jim Webb could be considered a centrist. He's certainly not a liberal. So who gets prop on this site? Isn't it generally people who acknowledge that this movement of the people is important?  That listening to us is important?

        This is a community who seems to enjoy knowledge and tend to be wonky. They want to know the plans and the details. They want to know direction. Alot of things are f'd up in this country. The reason why Edwards is doing well is because of his little roadmaps of where he wants to take the country. He's also doing well because people on this site see that media is trying to tune him and his message out and that pisses people off.

        •  Webb is no centrist (0+ / 0-)

          He is strongly against the Iraq war.  He is strong on economic inequality and he has even talked about how we imprison too many people.

        •  Webb would be public enemy #1 if people (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jxg, Yoshimi, TrueBlueDem

          discussed his stance on Iraq here.

          People here like folks who tell them what they want to hear.  No different than any other voters.

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

            Webb is for getting us out of Iraq. How would that make him enemy #1 here?

            •  Webb opposes timelines and defunding. eom (0+ / 0-)
              •  Even though he voted for a bill which does both? (0+ / 0-)

                Which is working it's way to Bush vetoing it?

                •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jxg, TrueBlueDem


                  U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., said Thursday he would introduce a piece of legislation on spending in Iraq in the Senate early next week in response to the supplemental spending bill currently under consideration in the House.

                  The bill, which he plans to sponsor along with Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., would not include timelines for troop withdrawals or redeployments as does the House spending bill, Webb said in an address to the National Press Club Thursday afternoon. The senator called such timelines "generally unworkable."

                  "The difficulty on funding issues for a war that’s ongoing is it’s very hard to target where that money will go," he said after his address. "All of the funding bills I have seen have been unworkable."

                  Webb quickly distinguished his bill prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in Iran, introduced last week, from the same characterization.

                  "The difference is the Iran bill cuts off funds to begin with," he said.

                  Can you imagine what this place would do if Clinton or Obama said that?

                  •  oh god, it's not just that (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kiwing, Geekesque

                    Were you here when the gun thing happened? Apparently Webb routinely carries a piece. On one occasion, he handed it to his aid before going through airport security, the aid forgot he had it and got in trouble for trying to enter the capital with a piece.

                    The thread following this news was practically drooling all over itself at what macho macho man Webb is, it was total man-lust. It was the same after his response to the State of the Union (which was excellent) but the response here was so enamored by his manly man routine, it was a little much.

                    I have nothing against Webb, I think he is great, I like the manly man routine. But the lack of self-awareness about the double standard is kind of hilarious.

            •  Webb Would Be a Celebrity Around Here. (0+ / 0-)

              My Senator, Jim Webb, has always made his crystal clear opposition to the Iraq War, a central theme to his message. Jim Webb has also continually condemned Bush's deception in taking us to fight an unnecessary War when this whole invasion & occupation had nothing to do with addressing the Sept. 11th attacks. He has pulled no punches in condemning Bush and the neocons for this murderous invasion of Iraq that has accomplished nothing in terms of keeping us safer or furthering our national security.

              Just this week, Jim Webb decisively denounced John McCain for his fearmongering when McCain accused Democrats of essentially emboldening the enemny because Democrats are insisting on an Iraq Timetable Pull Out as part of the funding package for the War. Specifically, Webb condemned McCain yesterday, for McCain's disingenous hiding behind the troops as his justification for questioning the patriotism of Iraq War opponents. I wish other Democrats would have this kind of courage to stand up to all of the GOP fear-mongering and slandering of our patriotism just because we have the courage to oppose this unnecessary war. These other Democrats should take lessons about political courage from Jim Webb. Us grassroots activists have been demanding this kind of backbone for years.

              Jim Webb would surely be a celebrity around here on the Iraq War Issue, as he is one of the few Democrats to really take on-head on, a prominent Republican who attacks our patriotism. And, Jim Webb is also progressive on economic issues as well in that he wrote an OP-ED piece in the Wall STreet Journal in Jan. (or Feb.) condemning the corruption and greed of corporate America and condemned how the rich keep getting richer while the poor get poorer. Webb also opposed the fascist Marriage Amendment that unfortunately, passed here in Virginia this past 2006 election season. He's also Pro-Choice, pro-labor (as already indicated) and an overall great guy (I have met Sen. Webb three times). Methinks Webb would be an overall celebrity around here. Sure, he's not perfect on every issue. But he is great on the issues that most count around here.  

          •  people here aren't single issue voters (0+ / 0-)

            No different from most other voters.

            We're not looking for a perfect candidate. Most of us have learned from 2004 that if you expect a candidate to resolve all our problems, we're destined for failure. Not as a party, but as a movement.

            Webb is pretty harsh on the Iraq rhetoric. I like that. Could he come up with firmer proposals to get us out? A lot of Democrats could stand to. But then, he delivered an unequivocal rebuke of the economic policies in this country. That MORE than earns him some points.

            Murtha may be a blue dog, but he's especially ballsy on Iraq. We LOVE that.

            Lieberman may vote with the Democrats on a bunch of key issues, but he's a bitch ass sell out when we need him the most, and LOVES heaping praise on the commander incompetent.

            Most people don't look at one single incident or statement from a senator/governor/politician and decide to support them or not. They add it all up.

            there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

            by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:53:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Media certainly isn't (0+ / 0-)

        You would've hardly known Edwards existed a couple months ago if you only watched MSM.

        Give real people a break already. This isn't corporate world.

      •  Geekesque, that is Obama's fault, not ours. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cosbo, lump1

        Obama could have stolen the hearts of the entire leftie Dem netroots, but Obama decided to listen to his mentor Joe Lieberman instead and go DLC and go anti-netroots (Lieberman thinks that we here are all dirty jihadists.)

        I have no deep love for Edwards, but Edwards has the best platforms on Iraq, Labor, and Health care.

        Obama has the best Dr. Phil feelgood psychobabble platform, however.

        I think that Kossacks are not "solidly pro-Edwards" as much as they are solidly focused on platforms & issues, where Edwards is excelling.

        In May 2006 Edwards was polling here at just 8%, which sorta shoots down your theory that this is the Edwards blog.

        Edwards EARNED his respect here the hard way, by being right on the issues that matter most to Kossacks.

  •  few things (10+ / 0-)

    first, get well and get rest....

    second, Richardson is really starting to impress me on a number of levels.  I always liked his creds but didn't think that he took himself seriously for a while.

    I hope to see him keep increasing his profile and polling numbers.

    I can see him as a real dark horse over the next 6-12 months.

  •  Not sure (5+ / 0-)

    Where all this is going. But it will be interesting to see how things trend as things move on.

    I am a still an O man.

    Obama 08!

  •  Richardson doing better but (5+ / 0-)

    man, look at that Edwards train!


    "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

    by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:09:42 AM PDT

  •  Too bad you cant nurse, too. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, pioneer111

    Baby would be happier if that were the case.

    Name a body part and a planet, and I've taken a bullet in it, on it. Relentless!

    by ablington on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:09:47 AM PDT

  •  i'd like to see richardson raise his profile (3+ / 0-)

    Although I'm trying to decide between obama and edwards (with hopes Clark will declare too).

    I'm of the mind that if the campaigns compete (civilly), we, the voters, win. They define themselves better. They take tough stances. They reach out to us.

    there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

    by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:10:33 AM PDT

  •  Hilary better out for Kucinich!! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nina Katarina, dnamj, LNK, lams712

    heh. . . "coming up on the outside, it's Gary neck and neck with the former frontrunner. .  . . three lengths behind No Fucking Clue . . ."

  •  I am all in for Edwards (8+ / 0-)

    but I love seeing Richardson getting some traction. He does bring a different look/ideas to the race. All candidates will improve if they are forced to consider and adopt or reject the ideas of others.

    roman catholic by birth---- thoroughly confused by life

    by alasmoses on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:12:39 AM PDT

  •  Richardson (7+ / 0-)

    Was in my top 2 or 3 for a long time despite his stand on gay marriage.
    He lost ground w/ me on Sunday when he defended Imus, praised Gonzales and was willing to give him more chances.
    Still interested but Edwards continues to impress.

    •  In the front page story beneath this, Byrd is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque, Daaaaave

      getting praised to high heaven as one of our best Senators. Kossacks know jack and squat.

    •  EVERYONE had ties to the DLC (8+ / 0-)

      Especially closer to the year 2000, when we were still high on Clinton, and it was still scary to criticize the president.

      Listen, I'd love to vote for Russ Feingold if he were running. But I'm also willing to be practical and give people a second chance. This country was upside down 4-5 years ago, as far as I'm concerned.

      What matters, to me, is when the writing was on the wall that Iraq was wrong, who still wanted to ride the DLC sinking ship, for fear that they would look weak if they criticized the war?

      there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

      by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:19:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Richardson is every bit as DLC as Clinton is. (6+ / 0-)

        However, he gets tagged with none of the criticism that she does on trade, Iraq, triangulation, etc etc.

      •  When did Richardson come out (0+ / 0-)

        against the war? I thought he originally supported it.

        He's obviously not a supporter now, but wondering when he decided.

        "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

        by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:30:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  moveone iraq town hall (0+ / 0-)

          he has the strongest anti-iraq war stance of all the 4 front runners. this is probably why his support surged in the newest poll.

          mydd straw poll vote: 1. other (gore) 2. unsure 3. richardson 4. obama 5. edwards

          by colorless green ideas on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:52:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not the case in 2003 (0+ / 0-)


            Discussion with Gov. Bill Richardson

            Aired February 18, 2003 - 08:09   ET

            ZAHN: So, Governor Richardson, based on what you know has happened to the European Union, based on the debate that continues at the U.N., what are the chances that the U.S. will go to war against Iraq?

            RICHARDSON: Well, I think the chances are very good. Now, the next step has to be, I believe, continuing our efforts at the United Nations to get a resolution, a second resolution that says that Iraq is in material breach, and secondly, that there will be serious consequences.

            Now, I read again a French statement today that did not mention the word veto, which gives me some hope. But at the same time, I think it's very important that the United States probably agree to some kind of a deadline, maybe two weeks, where we concentrate on seeing if Saddam is going to disarm. I think the odds are that he won't, but that we move ahead and see if we can get additional reconnaissance flights, if some of those missiles with excessive range can be destroyed. And, third, if we can interview some of the Iraqi scientists outside of Iraq with the presence of administration officials.

            I think for that, all of that to happen, Paula, I think it's probably not going to happen. So I think the odds are pretty strong that we will go to war, but it won't be probably for the next three weeks.

            Well, it actually took 4 weeks. He was well aware of what was going on and he was not a voice to stop the insanity.

            On March 7, Spain, the USA and the UK introduced a resolution in the UN Security Council that would have authorized the use of force. Russia, France and Germany issued a joint statement in opposition of what was coming:


            Declaration Russia - Germany - France


               * Our common objective remains the full and effective disarmament of Iraq, in compliance with Resolution 1441.

               * We consider that this objective can be achieved by the peaceful means of the inspections.

               * We moreover observe that these inspections are producing increasingly encouraging results:
                     o The destruction of the Al-Samoud missiles has started and is making progress,
                     o Iraqis are providing biological and chemical information,
                     o The interviews with Iraqi scientists are continuing.

               * Russia, Germany and France resolutely support Messrs Blix and El-Baradei and consider the meeting of the Council on 7 March to be an important step in the process put in place.

               * We firmly call for the Iraqi authorities to co-operate more actively with the inspectors to fully disarm their country. These inspections cannot continue indefinitely.

               * We consequently ask that the inspections now be speeded up, in keeping with the proposals put forward in the memorandum submitted to the Security Council by our three countries. We must:
                     o Specify and prioritise the remaining issues, programme by programme,
                     o Establish, for each point, detailed timelines.

               * Using this method, the inspectors have to present without any delay their work programme accompanied by regular progress reports to the Security Council. This programme could provide for a meeting clause to enable the Council to evaluate the overall results of this process.

               * In these circumstances, we will not let a proposed resolution pass that would authorise the use of force.

            Now, find me a statement by Richardson where he supported the above statement by Russia, France and Germany.

  •  High hopes for Richardson (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, bill e

    But I'm still Gore/Obama. Call me nuts.

    Good health to votre famille, Markos.

    the blue sea seethes with reason

    by howth of murph on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:14:13 AM PDT

  •  I'm just waiting for Kucinich to overtake Hillary (4+ / 0-)

    Can't say I'd particularly mind, either.  Just one more point, Dennis!

  •  None are perfect, all are interesting, to me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm not in love with any of them at all, but I wouldn't feel bad casting my ballot for any of our candidates. Oddly, I am such a product of my times. I can pretty much only remember republican majorities, and I still am trapped in thinking about "electability". I can;t seem to shake it. Must be from a lifetime of scar tissue.

    Clinton / Obama would be an amazing ticket for a lot of reasons.

    You can't get away with the crunch, 'cuz the crunch always gives you away

    by dnamj on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:17:33 AM PDT

  •  If you look at the trend of (6+ / 0-)

    this straw poll you will see that Obama supporters are consistent and have not been adding new supporters at Daily Kos.

    Edwards supporters have been gaining in size.  Sounds like most of the sideline supporters of Clark and Gore have defected to JRE.

  •  Edwards now enjoys the highest support. (9+ / 0-)

    This is the highest anyone has been supported since Feingold was at 44-48% in 2006.

  •  Nuclear family, not normal .... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    majcmb1, zigeunerweisen

    Kos Family best wishes.....I only wish you lived in my neighborhood so I could hop over and help. It's not 'normal' to have a nuclear rather than extended family.

    Nobody has ever before asked the nuclear family to live all by itself in a box the way we do. With no relatives, no support, we've put it in an impossible situation.
    Margaret Mead (1901-78), U.S. anthropologist. Quoted in: New Realities (June 1978).

    The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993, 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

    P.S. I feel terrible voting so early because we don't really know the candidates well enough yet, do we?

  •  Edwards & Richardson... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SMucci, Amayupta yo, Allogenes

    ...kick ass, for different reasons. I am an unapologetic Edwards supporter but Richardson has emerged as my dark horse candidate. The more I learn about him the more I like. I believe he was in favor of the Iraq invasion (a HUGE negative for me), but OVERALL his diplomatic/foreign policy skills are a HUGE PLUS.

    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

    by lams712 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:21:25 AM PDT

  •  Democrats will vote for a Pro-War Democrat (7+ / 0-)

    In the General Election you'll see, When will the party come back to the left?

    We need Al Gore, my liberal ass will stay home if on election day if Senator Clinton, Biden, Dodd or Edwards wins the nomination.

    H.J. Res. 114
    A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

    Biden (D) - Yea
    Clinton (D) - Yea
    Dodd (D) - Yea
    Edwards (D) - Yea

    23 Senators voted Nay to include Senator Chafee (R). How did these Senators get it right?

    •  Biden and Dodd don't have a snowball's chance (0+ / 0-)

      in Texas in mid-August. You can rest easy that Joe Biden will remain safely esconced in Delaware. . . and all you Biden fans out there (yes, Joe's wife and kids), you can flame on, you know it's true. As for Dodd.. . . um, who cares? Compared to other candidates who actually are interesting? As for Edwards, at least he has seen the error of his ways, unlike [coughillary] some people.

    •  Yes stay home because that will help us end the (7+ / 0-)


      "No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown (-5.38, -6.77)

      by AUBoy2007 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:35:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You shouldn't stay home on election day with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      any of these four, because they're all better than just about any Republican President with the attached degenerated Republican party replete with crooks and liars.

      You should continue helping defeat the war backers (such as the four above) in the Democratic primary, but back the winner in the general, with at least your vote.

      There are way too many important things on which any Democrat would do a much better than any Republican, not the least of which is the climate crisis.

      So, kick the war backers' asses in the primary, but unite for the general. That's my message.

      •  I will not (0+ / 0-)

        sell out my fellow troops and vote for a PRO-WAR Democrat. This is why so many liberals vote for the Green Party. The Democratic Leadership helps the media push candidates that aren't even liberal.

      •  You're assuming that Iraq is Over - How We Wish! (0+ / 0-)

        kick the war backers' asses in the primary

        Who is backing the disaster we see today? Who is facilitating the surge by their insufficient actions or passively by their negligent inaction? Who will have stood up and said most strongly to the voter - I understand how you feel and I'm going to get this right. When the smoke clears, all candidates will have to convince voters of what they can expect regarding their respective plans for  U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The instability there will remain in teh region years and years after every soldier has left Iraq. I'm predicting that you'll be surprised by how this all pans out by Spring of next year.

  •  I hope all is well. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nina Katarina, lams712, okamichan13

    It seems that Richardson is in the top tier of the blog candidates. Interesting poll results, as an Edwards supporter I was happy to see the results and have to wonder how Clinton deals with coming in below no fucking clue.

    Shut it down is so yesterday. Now it's time to FIRE IT UP!

    by high uintas on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:24:03 AM PDT

  •  Real world of Hillary at the top. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ohwilleke, Conservative Liberal

    Although we're told that Hillary is at the top in the real world, I'm not so sure this status actually reflects the "real world."  Sometimes these things become bandwagons or self-fulfilling prophecies. I don't believe a lot of what passes as "polling," especially after Kerry went from single digits to about 24% in the Iowa caucus, and the change took place in just a couple of days.    What scares me most is Hillary's insider connections in Iowa and the fact that a caucus vote is the opposite of the real world.  

    •  Hillary's insider Iowa connection (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That would be Vilsack.  Who couldn't poll double digits IN HIS OWN STATE when he was running.  

      Edwards still has a ground game in Iowa from back in 2004 (where he got a solid second place, remember?)  He's the only one of the top-tier candidates who has played Iowa before.

      Ever feel like you've been cheated?
      -Johnny Rotten

      by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:42:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's because women support her in the real world (0+ / 0-)

      And there are so few women who hang out on sites like this one.  That's why she doesn't poll well here, but is winning in reality.

      Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

      by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:43:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm a woman who is here all the time. (4+ / 0-)

        I don't think you are right about the kos polls being disproportianately male.  Any numbers?

        I also don't think Hillary is that popular with women.

      •  Not so sure. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cosbo, nasarius, vcmvo2, zigeunerweisen

        I'm a woman and hang out at this site, I know quite a few as well. She isn't even my 5th choice and all of my Dem woman friends are wary of her. We have talked about having the opertunity to vote for a woman for Pres and how much we wish that it wasn't Hillary.

        Shut it down is so yesterday. Now it's time to FIRE IT UP!

        by high uintas on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:52:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am woman (0+ / 0-)

        ...hear me roar. ;)

        I like your sig, btw.

        Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

        Everyone should.

      •  What is your daily crack allowance? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Just wondering.  The polling showing Hillary at the top is not reliable.  Many of these "dmocratic leaners" and even self described "Democrats" are not going to attend a caucus or vote in a primary.  So they don't matter.  They simply say "Hillary becuase that is who they think Democrats are supposed to support.  She has recieved so much free media it's ridiculous and polls from Rasmussen show Obama within the MOE and Edwards on closing in as well.

        Clinton supporters have a childlike, unfounded attatchment to Hillary.  They think "Bill last Democrat be president...Hillary be Bill's Democrat...methinks me vote for Hillary"

        Mario Cuomo was the Democrat everyone wanted to run in 1992 and he just said that he is most impressed with Edwards (who is already beating Hillary in fundraising in western New York, and of course Iowa) so by that logic every Democrat should support John Edwards.

        How do you excuse her nonstop calculation, triangulation, speeches that are a form of political do you excuse her ridiculous position on Iraq...or flag burning...or homosexuality being immoral?

        It would be nice to have a woman in the White House but that is not what is most important in 2008. What is most important is nominating and electing a principled, substantive, conviction- driven, proud Democrat who has the leadership skills we need and the willingness to take action.  I just described John Edwards, not Hillary Clinton. If you are still hell bent on electing a woman as president then nominate Elizabeth Edwards in 2016.  Then we would have something to agree on.  

        And just think of what she would do to congressional candidates who would have to run as "Hillary Democrats".  If you want to blow a great chance to expand majorities and pick up the White House so Democrats can pass a progressive agenda, then vote for Hillary. If you want transforamtional change, vote for John Edwards.

        Substance matters

  •  Will you vote in a Presidential Primary? (0+ / 0-)

    Please take my poll

    Obama? '08? Oh yea!

    by Skulnick on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:24:23 AM PDT

  •  An Edwards/Obama Ticket (7+ / 0-)

    would suit me fine

    •  Me Too (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cosbo, Conservative Liberal

      With Richardson, Clark, Gore in the Cabinet.

    •  unstoppable, in my book n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  would Obama take it? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, loudGizmo, lump1

      It doesn't look to me like he's going to 'settle' on the bottom of the ticket.

      An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. (Woodrow Wilson)

      by Alter Ego Manifesto on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:41:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think he would (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cosbo, AUBoy2007

        With a decent administration he would be a shoo-in in 2016. To go back to being a senator for 8 years would be problematic.

      •  they all say that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cosbo, BWasikIUgrad, AUBoy2007

        can't say that you would take VP otherwise no one will vote for you for president.

      •  Of course he would take it (4+ / 0-)

        he'd be a fool not to, and he's not a fool. And as vice president it would give him tremendous experience and give him a huge edge to run again in 8 years.

        Does he prefer being VP? of course not, he wants to win. But there's no way he would refuse VP if he was offered it.

        "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

        by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:53:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think he would (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NewJerz, Alter Ego Manifesto

        And it's not going to happen anyway - the biggest knock against either Edwards or Obama is lack of experience.  They are going to add someone with plenty on the ticket.

        And, as someone who personally believes that Obama has greater depth and intellect than Edwards (my personal opinion, not an attack), I doubt that he'd settle to being his second banana.

        Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

        by dansac on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:03:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Intellectuals are nice when are no problems... (0+ / 0-)

          We need a solutions guy. Edwards seems to be it. No knock on Obama.

          •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

            I think all of the major candidates are putting forth solutions to real problems - and I don't think all of them have released all their plans yet.  But in no way to I think Edwards is the sole "solutions guy" out there.  

            But on this board, I'm probably speaking into the wind.  I'm not an Edwards fan, but I'm not going to pretend that my candidate is the only guy with answers.  All of them are good in one way or another.

            Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

            by dansac on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:48:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I think he wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

        You're right. He's running a safe, statesmanlike campaign so he doesn't damage his brand. He's got irrevocable tenure as the Senator from Illinois, and that's what he will go back to if he doesn't win the pimary: The Superstar Senator. That's a pretty strong position to campaign from.

        But Obama could seriously damage himself if he runs for VP and loses. And I don't think he trusts either Hillary and Edwards enough to place his political fate in their hands. He's much safer when he guides his own destiny.

        He'd have very little to gain from being VP, and it would leave him appearing Beta. Obama is an Alpha, if anyone is. And he very much wants to project that. He's better off as the biggest fish in the senate pond, not the underling of a Kerry's(!) former underling.

    •  Kennedy needed Johnson (0+ / 0-)

      I'd love it, too, but I think that ticket wouldn't do well.  Electorally speaking, Edwards and Obama draw from the same well (that's why Kossacks, for instance, would love it so much) and share the same weaknesses.  2 young liberals that between them have 2 Senate terms?  Voters would look at that combo and see a lot of room for mistakes and crazy social experiments.  You may remember that Bush was able to deflect criticism of his experience by pointing to his highly credentialed running mate.  Same with Kennedy and Johnson and perhaps Clinton/Gore.

      That's why Richardson is such an appealing VP candidate-- he's a relatively conservative DLC Democrat from the Clinton Administration with executive experience and a foreign policy resume a mile long.

      Think you live in a free country? Try forming a union.

      by exiled texan on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:46:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  HRC results (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Leggy Starlitz, mightymouse, lams712

    I am amazed that, given the fact she continues to poll below thoses having "No Fucking Clue" as a preference, that the Clinton campaign has made no effort (that I'm aware of) to reach out to this community. Has her campaign not accepted that the netroots matter in Democratic politics? If that is the case, it does not bode well for her in '08.

    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, ... I'm a Democrat." Will Rodgers

    by CCSDem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:25:30 AM PDT

  •  Dream team (4+ / 0-)

    The perfect JFK revival of youth, intelligence and change:  Edwards as the Presidential candidate, Obama as the VP.  An unbeatable ticket even if the Reps had anything to offer to their base.

    •  I would think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue, Quinton

      that if Edwards locks up enough delegates, he would go for a VP candidate that is not a populist like he is.  He would want someone that appeals to the tens of millions of baby boomers and pre-boomers who will be 60 and above by election day, and someone who appears more conservative than he is.  Clark would be a better pick than for Edwards' VP than Obama if you want to win in the red states.  That's a Carolina/Arkansas ticket.  Think of Carter and Clinton (and the example of Gore's devastating loss in TN)--Democrats need to win the South most of all.

      •  Obama is not a populist (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But, I agree someone with foreign policy experience might be a better match.

        •  He isn't a "populist" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          per David Sirota and other liberal elitists, yet he has the most people at his rallies and the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

          Classical populism
          The word populism is derived from the Latin word populus, which means people in English (in the sense of "nation," as in: "The Roman People (populus Romanus), not in the sense of "multiple individual persons" as in: "There are people visiting us today"). Therefore, populism espouses government by the people as a whole (that is to say, the masses). This is in contrast to elitism, aristocracy, or plutocracy, each of which is an ideology that espouse government by a small, privileged group above the masses.

          Go figure, Obama is a populist. :)

          •  Populism is usually defined as defending the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nasarius, Quinton

            interests of regular people against the powerful.  That is the definition I was thinking about.

            I don't get the gratuitous swing at David Sirota or the accusation that he and other unnamed liberals are elitists.  

            Are you saying a populist is the one with "the most people at his rallies" or the "most liberal"?  If so, this is a different definition of populism than I am used to.

      •  Edwards/Durbin n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citizen53, MRL
      •  not actually true (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the way the map is currently looking, the Democrats can win the election without a single southern state.  Of course, we're all believers in the 50 state strategy and I'm not advocating ditching the south, but there's no reason to skew our ticket away from the rest of the country in the hopes of poaching 1 or 2 southern states.  

        For instance, I think it would actually be easier to win the West Coast (Washington, Oregon, California), the Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio), and the northeast (from PA north, minus NH), along with New Mexico and Hawaii, which gives the Democrats 273 electoral votes and the White House.  And that doesn't even include the swing states Nevada, Iowa, or Colorado (or, in my opinion, Virginia, which is quickly turning blue as Washington suburbanites take over).

        Think you live in a free country? Try forming a union.

        by exiled texan on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:58:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't forget NH! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Kerry picked it up in 2004 and in 2006 not only did both House seats go to Dems, but about 100 seats in the General Court and I don't remember how many in the Senate to give Democrats control of both houses of the legislature since Reconstruction.  NH is blue and it's staying that way.  Don't forget those 4 electoral votes!

      •  All of a sudden Baby Boomers are conservative? (0+ / 0-)

        When the hell did that happen? I think you've been watching too many of those investment company ads on TV--most boomers aren't that wealthy, and sure aren't "conservative."

        "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 Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:03:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can't wait for Clark to announce for 2008 (0+ / 0-)

    It's not too late.  Funny how the mass media made a big deal out of the money race and you see that most candidates have already spent at least half their money and did not see much movement.   That means that any announced candidate is really only about 10 million behind and will enter with a splash because neither party's lineup is strong!

    Entry even after the next quarter is still earlier than most election cycles and you can see candidate burnout and hiccups already.

    General Clark isn't a Rhodes Scholar who lacks foresight!  He may surprise a lot of folks and he is currently getting free media and working on real policy!  I think most of these currently "elected" officials should work on policy as hard as private citizen Clark is doing right now!  

  •  Richardson fills the "experience" gap (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lee, danthrax

    I welcome a 4 person race and I think it would elevate the debate, especially on the foreign policy side of things.  The fact is Richardson has as much/more foreign policy experience than any candidate for president and as such would always make any debate better and any field stronger.

    His ability to rise to the top of that field will depend I believe on his ability to credibly address foreign policy issues and relay a solid domestic agenda.

    I like the guy alot, voted for him in the straw poll, reserve my donations for now, but look to see his performance in the upcoming debates.

    Cut n Run... to Mars... Ma Bitches

    by Steven R on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:29:30 AM PDT

  •  in the netroots primary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarcTGFG, ohwilleke

    Edwards is Clinton, Clinton is Richardson, Richardson is Edwards, and Obama is still Obama.

  •  Edwards (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    majcmb1, jct, Quinton

    What accounts for the discrepancy between MSM polls and the DK poll?  Activism?  Education?  Income?  Age?  It is absolutely remarkable that Hillary can lead the network polls but rate below "No F'ing Clue" on Kos.  Repubs probably support Hillary more than Kossacks do.

    There does seem to be a growing trend of DK diarists and commentators (and bloggers in general) starting to lead the tide of Democratic public opinion instead of just being a eddy in the other direction.  I think this was noted in a recent NYT editorial regarding Congress and Iraq.  Perhaps MSM reporters are starting to read and rely upon leads generated by contributors to sites like this one.  I don't know.  But Edwards is trending up in both polls and I like it.

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

      Since it's so early, perhaps name recognition is winning in the MSM polls. The crow here knows all the characters well, so name recognition is not a factor in the Dkos poll.

    •  People who read this site are paying a lot more (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MeanBoneII, nasarius, zhimbo, Quinton

      attention to the election and the specifics of each candidate than most voters are at this point.  If you pay attention, Edwards looks terrific.

    •  Edwards is appealing to the left (0+ / 0-)

      and the MSM skews right, so most people hear more about Hillary. Obama earns media attention for being (a) charismatic, (b) black, (c) able to convince thousands of middle-class dems to open their wallets for him, to the extent of beating big-money favorite Hillary in the first-quarter money-raising contest.

      "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 Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:09:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Untrue (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry, but that's pretty uninformed about Obama.  He earns media attention because people are turning out by the thousands to hear him speak, many more are reading his book, and they want to hear where he stands.  The attention to Obama came from the ground up - he decided to run because so many came pouring out to see him speak, and that's what got MSM attention.

        Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

        by dansac on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:02:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see how that contradicts (0+ / 0-)

          anything I said--I intended "charismatic" to cover the fact that he draws huge crowds to his rallies. I did not say anything critical about Obama--your offense-ometer setting is way to sensitive if that comment set it off.

          "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 Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:54:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Stay well, Kos family. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MeanBoneII, vcmvo2

    Take care and get some rest.

  •  Why has Edwards soared while Obama stable? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ohwilleke, danthrax, jct

    Honest question, soliciting your opinions.

    Why has Edwards made significant gains while Obama remains on a plateau?

    Cut n Run... to Mars... Ma Bitches

    by Steven R on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:32:13 AM PDT

    •  Obama's trying to stay above the fray (8+ / 0-)

      as in, beyond partisan politics.  This site is about partisan politics... we're all about the fray!  Edwards is willing to lay out specific positions that people around here like.

    •  Edwards is strong with online politicals. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cosbo, jct, chicago minx

      Obama is strong on campuses. I think the different types age groups and different voter needs.

    •  Loudest bullhorn in part (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, cosbo, Quinton

      I'm sure part of Edwards gain is due to his campaign, but I'm also dead certain that a lot of it is due to the incessant drumbeat of pro-Edwards diaries that also turn anti-Obama in the comments.

      Obamans started to fight back for real last week, but the Edwardians changed some minds during the time they were making the most noise in the diaries.

      Say what you will about the two candidates, but Edwards has some of the most dedicated supporters, for sure.

      The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

      by nightsweat on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:35:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Get off of it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Obama is running a "personality driven" fluffy campaign.

        The beef is missing.  In other words.


        He even cancelled the foreign policy speech he was going to give.  You know the one that his spokesperson said would teach those unpatriotic liberals to finally love their country, or something that was code for that.  Just like he skipped the AFSME? (I think it was AFSCME, it was an early forum)forum.  Just like he had nothing to say at the CFAP forum on health care except for "help me Obama fans".  

        Axelrod says that Obama is "toning down the rhetoric" but now he is just shallow as always but boring to boot

        Edwards is the only substantive candidate who actually leads, which is something we need.

        He is running to change our country,

        Obama is running to talk about himself.

        Big difference.

        •  So like I was saying. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Loud and occasionally rude.

          The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

          by nightsweat on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:58:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Grow Up (0+ / 0-)

            Awww, is the little baby offended?  Do you want your wassy? (that's what my god daughter calls her pacifier so I'm assuming that it's what you call yours.

            You know who you sound like?

            The little girl from Full House.

            Come on, say it just once.

            "How rude!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

            Between that and you dillusional rantings about the Cubs why don't you put your Ashley Mary Olsen whoever together with Harry Carry (sp?)

            "How rude......Cubs Win...Cubs Win!"

            Now throw in Barack Obama

            "How rude....Cubs Win...Cubs Win...Hope..Hope...Hope...small politics...Hope"

            There. I think I pretty much summed you up.

            •  Squawk! Squawk! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Obama bad! Obama bad! Squawk! Polly wanna talking point!

              For Chrissake, read my original message.  I didn't say Edwards had no substance. I used positive language to express my belief that the incessant parade of anti-Obama pro-Edwards diaries had an effect on Obama's results.  Do you deny it did?  Do you think some bright shiny light emanated from Edwards' website and let everyone know what a great guy he is? Or do you think that maybe the negative campaign on this site had an effect?

              I'm fine with Edwards. I find his supporters to be a mixed bag. Some, like TomP are advocates for Edwards.

              Others, like you, are rude assholes who bring discredit to your candidate.

              The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

              by nightsweat on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:07:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What are you on? (0+ / 0-)

                Polly want a talking point?  And this from an Obama supporter.  I know you never said that Edwards lacked substance because even a dipshit like you wouldn't say something as ridiculous as that.  Even David Brooks, the Obama loving rightwinger, admits that Obama has no substance compared to Edwards.

                I can do a lot more than say "obama bad" and I already have.  You want a run down

                1. voting for tort reform to show that he is "not beholen to the progressive wing of the party"
                1. quietly courtingK street
                1. winking to Wallstreet with his op-ed on CAFTA (david sirota saw this too)
                1.  Telling reporters, while running for senate, that he isn't sure how he would have voted on the IWR
                1.  Hiring David Axelord to run a "personality driven campaign"
                1.  Challenging progressive congressman Bobby Rush in a primary and then having his ass handed to him
                1.  This isn't a negative on him but i'm tired of people saying that he did so great in his senate run.  He beat Alan Keyes in a soldily blue state.  Keyes lost bad when he ran in Maryland too.
                1. part 2(the first one didn't count) Adding 10 "on the other hand"s to everything he says
                1. Voting against Feingold - Reed (Edwards supported it)
                1.  Not supporting cutting off funds for the surge

                (Edwards did)

                1.  Being too scared to say that homosexuality is not immoral
                1.  Creating strawman Democrats to attack both in his book and on trade, both in his speec in NH and in his op-ed
                1.  The "chicken" comment

                Do you want me to keep on going?

                What has Edwards done in the last year and a half that comes anywhere close to any of this?  

                Obama is nothing but a nice fluffy piece of cotton candy.  Obviously you love cotton candy.  Like I said the fist time...

                I think I summed you up.

                •  "I think I summed you up" (0+ / 0-)

                  Is this your version of "pwn3d"? Are you "l337"?

                  You need to examine your assumptions.  I've said everytime I've been asked that I'm currently agnostic on candidates. I do not support Clinton and I think it's futile to support Dodd, Biden, or Kucinich so I'm basically down to Richardson, Edwards, and yes, Obama.

                  None of them are my perfect candidate, but I find the rhetoric for a large number of the Edwards supporters to be the most offensive on the site, currently.  It seems that it's impossible to promote Edwards for them without tearing another candidate down (usually Obama).

                  I have reservations about Obama, many of the ones you outline above. I have reservations about Edwards, not limited to but certainly including his craven politically motivated vote for the AUMF, and the fact that his very specific health care plan is impractical IMHO.  As for Richardson, he's great on Foreign, but too conservative domestically for me.  I also know the least about him.

                  But no, that's not apparent to you.  To you, I'm just another of the heathen who doesn't support your favorite candidate.  Just another person you have to attack and tear down (for being a fan of the Cubs, among other things). Just another nameless poster to attempt to humiliate with your oh so clever catch phrase (which must be bolded, apparently) "I think I summed you up."

                  Well, Mister (or Miss, if you prefer), I think I just summed you up. Har. Har. Har.

                  The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

                  by nightsweat on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:58:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Is that the best you can do (0+ / 0-)

                    I never called you a heathen.  I called you a dipshit.  Get your facts straight.  J/K, LOL

                    Everything you have written is a pathetic attempt to come back at my commetns about you sounding like th Olsen twins and Harry Carry mixed with Obama.  I'm not usually good at this angry internet war stuff but I have to give myself credit on that one.  It was funny shit.  

                    And your "Well Mister (or Miss, if your prefer)" is  throwback to when I was in 3rd grade.  What's next?  Is this where I call you a penis wrinkle?  Then are you going to say "I know you are, but what am I?"  Then do I say, "Hey 'nightsweat' why did you name yourself after a porno?" And then you say "How do you know they title of a porno?"  And then I say, "I watch them with your mom all the time."

                    How predicatble.  The "I guess I summed YOU up" thing was straight out of Wresltemania. I didn't know that pro-wrestling had such huge crossover appeal with pro-wrestling.

                    Yes, I occasionally called you names.  I probably shouldn't have.  But you where not engaging me on the issues.  If frustrated me.  You where the one who made "assumptions" about me.  You assumed that I was just some enraged Edwards supporter (I partially am, but here's the difference) who had no reason to support him other than blind allegiance.

                    My allegiance is to the progressive wing of the Democratic part.  I firmly believe that John Edwards is the best candidate for that wing of the party and right now, a lot of people like you are trying to give all sorts of reasons for why he is gaining in popularity except for the most obvious one.  The substance of his campaign.  Sometimes confrontation is needed in politics.  A lot of the time being really passionate and turning a few people off every now and then is a lot better than letting B.S. get spread about the candidate you beleive in.  Are some of the things I said too much for some people? Yes, and I probably shouldn't say them.  But to just dismiss me as "loud and rude" and without merit as an advocate is ridiculous.  If you were to read everything I have read I think you will find that, at the least, I have concrete reasons for what I believe and I can cite specific examples.  I could do a better job of it but a lof of Obama supporters were upset about his performance in the poll, trying to discredit it or the reasons for Edwards success, and someone needed to push back.  

                    I'll at least admit that I didn't "sum you up".  I don't know you as a person and you don't know me.

                    I like that Obama supporters are so upset about those who voted for the war.  They should be.  That is a values based argument and it has a lot of merit.  I like that Richardson has so much experience.  Arguing about that has merit.  But don't come at the most sustantive candidate in the race and say that his supporters are all a-holes.  I might have been one to you today but I am not every Edwards supporter.  There is nothing wrong with being angry at the American Idot election.  If that anger was misdirected then my bad, but by claiming that I have no basis to support him you are, in a roundabout way, claiming that a reasonable person would find no simple and straight forward reason to support him, and there are many reasons to support him.

                    By the way.  I considered every candidate.  When Obama announced I watched him.  He has been throughly unimpressive.  The resons I listed above are only the beginning.  Edwards solidified his my support by the campaign he has run.  Yes, I have made up my mind but there are good reasons why.  If I listed all the times John Edwards has been the first, and often only, candidate to do something important for the progressive movement then this comment would be a lot longer than it already is.  We need a leader.  He has proven himself to be that leader.  That is why people are so passionate about supporting him.  We feel (and I speak for only the Edwards supporters I know) like too many people are falling into the trap of false allegiances and the cult of personality. We feel like we want to scream "WAKE UP" at people whose metrics for what makes the right candidate seem shallow.

                    We're all looking for the right Democrat.  When we think we find them we all get excited and it's natural to get a little defensive about that candidate.  Part of what bothers me is when people whine about how if they read one more "mean Obama supporter" or "mean Edwards supporter" they are going to vote for someone else.  This is an importatnt debate.  If an insult or two flies, big deal.  Is it in line with progressive values?  Absolutely not.  Are any of us perfect? No, I'm not.  One or two or a hundred rude supporters of one candidate shouldn;t discourage anybody from voting for the best candidate.  I'm for gay marriage.  Edwards is not.  Neither are a lot of his supporters. I think that is ridiculous, but if I threw away the major candidate most likely to eventually support gay marriage because of that I would be the biggest idiot in the world.

                    In closing, I think that if you re-evaluate the candidates periodically based on their performance, what they stand for, and whatever else is important to you, you will eventually see that Edwards is the best Democrat in the race.  We shouldn't have to wait until May to get substance from out candidates, but that is what some of them are making us do.  I hate that.  We all should hate that.  Being "rude" to the idea that the candidates only lead when they have to is not a bad thing.  It's "rude" of them or their supporters to ever think that they can do that in the first place.      

                    Maybe Edwards supporters (who act like me) should calm down.  But Obama supporters need to stop claiming that we have made "assumptions" or are just flippantly chosing a candidate when it is clear to everyone who hears him speak what John Edwards stands for.  It is clear why people would support him.  I cannot say that about Obama, I definitely can't say that about Clinton.  That was the point you missed.

                    •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

                      The Mister or Miss comment was a courtesy since I don't know your gender.

                      I still find your approach to be completely ill-adised and more likely to turn off potential suporters of Edwards.  I disagree with much of your analysis of Obama.  It's fine that we disagree, but I'd really aprreciate it if you'd be less of a dick about it.

                      The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

                      by nightsweat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 06:18:04 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  People feel they don't "know" who Obama is. (8+ / 0-)

      I think he's very charismatic and smart, but that he still seems to be an enigma to many people.  Voters want to be sure this time.

    •  Edwards has been the most progressive (7+ / 0-)

      and laid out clear policies on issues and his politics of challenging the status quo from the war to poverty to health care to the environment etc is aligned with netroots sentiments.

      Given a lot of rather critical netroots press lately over some of Obama's statements regarding the war and other things, it speaks well for him that his support has stayed at this level.

      "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

      by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:41:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  this does not make up for (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, pHunbalanced, chicago minx

        his initial vote.

        H.J. Res. 114
        A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

        Biden (D) - Yea
        Clinton (D) - Yea
        Dodd (D) - Yea
        Edwards (D) - Yea

        23 Senators voted Nay to include Senator Chafee (R). How did these Senators get it right?

        Now that its politically smart to be anti-war, Edwards is against the war, he owns this war as much as Pelosi, Clinton, Murtha and all the others that voted to kill over 3300 american troops.

        •  Obviously for some people - it does (7+ / 0-)

          or at least lets them look at him with new eyes and take his apology, and his strong stance to end the war, seriously.

          If you doubt it, look at the polls history

          "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

          by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:55:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  most Americans are quite forgiving (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MeanBoneII, nasarius, AUBoy2007

            I'm just glad that George Bush doesn't know this. Honestly, if he had come out in 2005 and said "I screwed up on Iraq. Now, let's fix it", the Republicans would have done a lot better in 2006. Or on Katrina. Or pretty much any other major blunder.

            Instead, he just looks like a stubborn ass. Works to our advantage.

            there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

            by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:12:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think you are totally right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              He's had innumerable chances to change course and admit mistakes and has refused to every time. Instead we get more stubbornness and more incompetency.

              "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

              by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:18:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  the reason he doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                Is because it's bigger than George Bush. He wouldn't dare bite the hand that feeds him. Repudiating his neo-conservative craziness and going with some common sense would win the voters over. But their strategy is to be fiercely loyal to those ideas, in hope that they can save them in 2008 and beyond.

                They intend to write history. If he admits a mistake, he might gain popularity, but history will be written that Iraq was Vietnam II.

                Turns out history will write it that way anyway.

                there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

                by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:23:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  It does for me. (10+ / 0-)

          People make mistakes.  Some people admit them. Some even move on and learn from them.

          •  How did (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            23 Senators get it right, Was John Edwards just to lazy to read the Intellegence? I knew it was flawed and I never worked in the congress. What happened to this man?

            •  a lot of people were assleep (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              some of them are awake now

              some of them are more awake now than others because they were caught sleeping

              •  That is a (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                terrible excuse, I could never ever vote for someone who failed to do their job. The most important vote of a congressman or senator is the vote to authorize war. John Edwards did not take that vote seriously and now our American Troops are feeling the blunt of his vote.

                •  I don't think that's fair. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cosbo, Quinton

                  This has been hashed to death, but Congress did not have the benefit of full access to the intelligence information avaialble to the administration. Those who voted against the war did not necessarily make their call based on a more studious appraisal of the doctored intelligence, but rather as an expression of conscience.  Yes, that counts for something and its why I would have supported someone like Feingold in this race. But others of good conscience voted for the AUMF to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt and thought it would not necessarily lead to an actual invasion. It certainly seemed like effective leverage for a while for opening up access for the UN inspectors. I admit that I was fooled as well, but I forgive myself, and I forgive folks like Hillary and Edwards as well.

                •  There is a difference between force and war... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cosbo, MeanBoneII

                  as Saddam actually backed down.

                  It was Bush who then decided to make war.

                  Would you have preferred Daschle-Lott?

                •  Read why he voted yes (0+ / 0-)

                  He did pay attention to the intelligence.  He was on the intelligence committee.  The CIA does whatever the administration asks for.  There are many great CIA analysts who have spoken out but even they couldn't have stopped it.  Clinton's allies were a big part of this.  And I mean Bill.  Not only was Bill behins Hillary voting yes (though both of them say that they would not have started the war)his former Admin. officials were behind a lot of the Dem votes for the war.

                  Edwards said that he didn't trust Bush with the authority.  He should have followed that instict.  He didn't and he has repeatedly apologied, even making people aware of his vote when he didn't need to.  And since 2005 he has led on the issue.  Even Chuck Todd talks about how he is the leader of the Demcoratic debate on the war and Obama has squandered his credibility by playing it "safe".

                  I can understand why you are angry but Edwards didn't vote for the war for political reasons.  By all accounts (even those of current adversaries) when he was presented with the "you'll lose any national security credibility" crap he didn't cahnge his mind.  It was the Clinton officials who he THOUGHT he could trust.

                  He still should have voted against it, but these are mitigating circumstances.

            •  How do you feel about RFK, Teddy, McGovern? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I'm interested to know if you would have voted for them to be President.

        •  response (0+ / 0-)

          I respect the place that you are coming from but he has led on this issue since late 2005.  It's not just about what they did at the start (though every vote to authorize was dead wrong), it's they've done recently while the war has raged.

          You might want to read the account of why Edwards voted yes.  Even Bob Shrum (who parted ways with the Edwards 04' campaign in essence because he pretty much tricked Edwards into voting for the war by having a string of former clinton officials talk to Edwards and convince him that Saddam had WMD, though Edwards should have still voted no) says that Edwards was going to vote no until the former Clinton officials convinced him that Saddam had WMD.  There is a rumor that one of those officials was Bill Richardson (who was even then competing with Edwards for the top spot on the presumed short list for VP choices for any candidate, as Edwards was #2 on Gore's list in 2000) but that has not been confimed by anybody so take it for what it's worth.

          You make some good poits but Edwards has been far stronger on the war post 2005.  He was for Kerry Feingold and for cutting funds for the surge.  I don't like his vote but the only candidate who was right on Iraq at the start was Obama but he has failed to lead on the issue and has played politics with the war and it's supporters (lieberman among them) since.  Edwards has proven himself on the issue to people like me, but to people like you who have another level of understanding about this war he clearly has more work to do.

        •  Edwards track parallels most of the public (0+ / 0-)

          I think a lot of us identify with a guy who originally said "well, if all that is true, ok .. . but get it right" and then watched as the Republican Administration butchered everything they touched.  And I use that verb intentionally.

          JRE 2008
          "We should ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."
          -John Edwards

          by DrFrankLives on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:46:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  4 reasons-environment, poverty, health care, Iraq (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      •  But he has a worse record on the environment and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Iraq. Why would he do better on those issues?

        •  his current possition on Iraq is better (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Obama is more likely to try to compromise with the Republicans.  While he was against the IWR when at came up and Edwards was for it, Edwards has since said he was "dead wrong" about his IWR vote and has become extremely anti-war.  Essentially, Edwards is a completely different candidate than he was in 2004.

          I think he has a better enviroment position as well.  He is walking the talk on environment.  They just took time out of campaigning to do environmental benefits while Obama continued to campaign.

        •  Not the best environmentally (0+ / 0-)

          That's my biggest problem with Edwards right now.  Environment seems to be a very low priority for him, such that it is out of balance with his emphasis on social issues.  I like his stance on social issues. I'm  just worried that he's too willing to sacrifice the environmental cause (which, by the way, extends far beyond global warming).

          •  Weird - maybe check out his website? (4+ / 0-)

            not really sure how you can say that. His plan is much more than just about global warming.

            "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

            by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:01:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Low priority... (0+ / 0-)

            posting more because I just don't understand how anyone can say that that has done some minimum research.

            and i think what you may be missing is also that Edwards realizes as we all should that envirionmental issues and social issues are intertwined. Who suffers the most from a degraded environment, bad drinking water, poor air quality, etc?

            the same people who have poor or no access to health care and who live in poverty.

            its all connected really.

            "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

            by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:17:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Arcparser (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            What the hell are you talking about?  Comprimie with who?  Big business and K street HATE HIM!  I mean they seriously hate him.  Edwards is the only Dem (besides Kucinich and Gravel) who has NO SUPPORT ON K STREET and is not doing anything to change it.  Read Joe Klein's article on Barack Obama.  I know that Joe Klein is as turdy as a turd gets but he actually has a point here.  Obama is obsessed with a "consensus" that is about as unrealistic as it gets.  He uses it as a smokescreen so he can sell out, ala tort reform.  

            See what Obama says when questioned on the environment.  It's always "I'll look into it" or "maybe sorta just a little kinda we might maybe be able to possibly do something, but on the other hand..."  

            Obama is like cotton candy.  He tastes sweet at first but then you see that HE HAS NO SUBSTANCE

            •  I'm an Edwards supporter (0+ / 0-)

              Sorry if I implied that Edwards had some untoward connection with lobbyists or big business. I've never felt that was the case, and don't think I stated that anywhere.

              I only meant to say that Edwards has made a few bad anti-environmental votes in his career, and I'm looking for more evidence that he's changed his ways. I'm happy about his energy and global warming policies.

              As a "tree-hugger" I'm looking for some hint that he understands the environmental cause in some depth and will make good decisions on more than one issue.

              Right now, he's the best of the bunch.  But I don't have the comfort level with him that I had with Howard Dean, when it comes to the environment.

        •  He has most substantial environmental plan (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jct, Quinton

          of anyone running now, by far - highly praised by the league of conservation voters. And he is not only offering pland but action such as his call to all Edwards supporters to help in Step it Up ( and his new website -

          "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

          by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:00:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But shouldn't past performance be an indicator (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jxg, pHunbalanced, chicago minx

            of future action?

            •  I think so (0+ / 0-)

              I like to think that we have the opportunity to vote for someone who was right in the first place on Iraq, et al, and we should reward that foresight.  

              Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

              by dansac on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:07:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And I'd like to think that where someone stands (0+ / 0-)

                now, 5 years later also matters. Its not just about the mistakes of the past, its about the direction of the future.

                "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

                by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:12:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Lincoln said: (4+ / 0-)

                  I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                •  okamichan 13 (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  As my evangelical father would say "amen, brother"

                  Why does it seem that it's mostly Edwards supporters who seem to get what this election needs to be about and how important it is.

                  It cannot be about Clinton's husband or Obama's "personality"

                  How does that help the progressive movement that helps the party that helps the country?

                  The answer is...IT DOESN'T!  

                  It needs to be about the future of the country, not race or gender or trying to turn the clock back to 1992.  

                  We need someone who will fight for ALL Americans of every gender, race, religion or loack thereof, political persuasion, sexual preference, and economic status.

                  Only one candidate has shown the determination, leadership, depth, conviction, backbone, and substance to do that.

                  That is John Edwards.

                  Keep fighting the good fight.

                  Substance matters.

                  •  Sigh (0+ / 0-)

                    "Only one candidate"...I so deeply disagree with this statement.  As I disagree with the framing that Clinton is only about her husband or Obama is about his "personality."  

                    Substance matters, and Edwards isn't the only one who has it.  I so wish his supporters on this board would find a way to support him without these claims that demean other qualified candidates.  

                    Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

                    by dansac on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:44:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Thats for people to decide (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BWasikIUgrad, jct, Quinton

              for myself, he has clearly become more and more concerned and progressive regarding environmental issues and thats a good thing. I dont see the other candidates offering much in the way of bold ideas or specific plans.

              and his actions now arent just talk. Hes putting specific plans out there and getting people involved in the envronmental movement now, not waiting for 2009. He's right on the money.

              "The best way to leave Iraq is to start leaving." -- John Edwards

              by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:09:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  yes and no (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              majcmb1, Quinton

              I think some people are very willing to mistakenly discount past performance completely, but it is also easy to put too much stock in it. People do change with age and experience. I also believe that one is inclined to behave differently as the chief executive of the whole nation than as state executives a representative of a specific group of constituents. Our post WWII southern Democratic presidents have all been moved bit to the left as POTUS from where they were as AR Governor, GA Governor, or TX Senator.

            •  Not if he's educated himself more on the issue (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              from all sides. Right now Edwards is free from the Senate and even essentially from the decision he made for his state. Edwards is now running how he would do things. He said that he learned more since he's been out of the senate than the entire time he was there. His new positions and stances are probably the result of self education and talking to people. He also did a lot of poverty work. He did work in New Orleans and he traveled abroad.

          •  That's it? (0+ / 0-)

            Anything else?  Carbon isn't the only issue out there.

          •  True. It's a good plan. (0+ / 0-)

            I would just like to see some evidence that he understands the full breadth of environmental issues at stake. It may be that he has learned from his earlier mistakes, just as he seems to regarding his AUMF vote. But I still worry about his earlier support for things like mountaintop strip mining, subsidies for industrial farms, unrestriced pesticide use in national parks, storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

            •  Aceparser, again (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Quinton, okamichan13

              Do you have something logged in an orfice or something?  Edwards has the same position on Yucca Mountain as environmental community.

              why do you think that the leading environmental group in the country just gave Edwards a lot of credit, and in doing so gave the appearance of the beginnings of an official endorsement.  Why would they do that?  Think about that.  Read the statement from them on his website.

              Stop trying to discredit him with unfounded B.S.

      •  And workers' issues (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        benny05, Quinton

        He is very strongly pro-union.

    •  Obama needs a louder or clearer message (7+ / 0-)

      Either clearer in the sense that he needs to talk very specifically about his vision for this country... or louder in that the specifics he IS talking about aren't getting pushed as much as his charisma, the size of his rallies, his ability to take down Hillary, etc.

      I am SO ready to give Obama or Edwards my vote. I'm leaning more and more Edwards daily, though, because he's on top of every little issue. And even the 'non-issues', like poverty, he brings them out even though they're not on the list of top issues like health care or Iraq.

      Fortunately for all the candidates, I promised myself I'd stay open until the fall. But unfortunately for all the candidates, I think other people are making up their mind VERY quickly. I can't exactly fault voters for that, although I wish they would demand the candidates compete for their support.

      there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

      by danthrax on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:49:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agreee, wait to see a few debates (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nightsweat, danthrax, jct, zhimbo

        Honestly, it's all PR, Smoke, Mirrors, Soundbites, and platitudes at this point.

        Shit, Hillary doesn't even have a fucking issues link on her site, unbelievable.  Barack's is a mumbled mixture of things he's done and things he reports he may do.

        Myself, my support will be won in the debates.  I'm looking for someone who can really speak to policy, connect with compassion, project confidence, illicit hope, and carry credibility on foreign policy.  I'm willing to forgive blemishes on records/experience gaps so long as someone is moving forward the right way in the right direction for me.

        i'm greatful though that we have such a strong field of candidates.  i feel bad sorta for the republicans, though I always said Karma was a bitch LOL!

        Cut n Run... to Mars... Ma Bitches

        by Steven R on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:58:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Where would these significant gains be? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Rate-Them-All results (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sbdenmon, zhimbo

    Yesterday I ran a parallel rate-them-all poll with a —10 to 10 scale for each choice and two write-in slots.

    I've posted the results and here's a little taste:

    NameRaw Rating Summation
    John Edwards1360.00
    Barack Obama998.00
    Bill Richardson956.00
    Al Gore639.00
    Wesley Clark307.00
    Joe Biden-9.00
    Joe Lieberman-10.00
    Dennis Kucinich-45.00
    Mike Gravel-170.00
    Hillary Clinton-207.00

    1. Election Reform 2. Richardson 3. Edwards 4. Obama

    by bolson on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:33:05 AM PDT

  •  Best part about this (3+ / 0-)

    I have too many good candidates to choose from.  That's such a great feeling as opposed to previous campaigns when I like I was voting for "the lesser of two evils" rather than someone I really liked.


    Middle of the road with a slight pull to the left.

    by gjosefsberg on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:33:19 AM PDT

  •  last 3 polls have Obama down 2, 4 and 5 (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary may be on "top" but she's no longer the favorite in the race if you look at teh momentum, sttate polls, enthusiasm and the fact that the general election poll #s of Hillary is beginning to get more play among dems.

    put the money in the bag

    by nevadadem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:33:43 AM PDT

  •  Richardson? really?... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jct, Quinton

    I expect people to fall out of love when they realize his true DLC tendencies.

    "When people think, Democrats win." - Bill Clinton

    by Todd Beeton on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:34:26 AM PDT

  •  I can't believe (0+ / 0-)

    that us true liberals and progressives will support a man who voted to kill more than 3300 American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. A man that now says he made a mistake even though 23 of his colleagues got that vote correct. Is it just political smart to be against this war now?

    •  It is about the goal (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BWasikIUgrad, majcmb1, jct, hedgey, Quinton

      I suspect most people here are focused on accomplishing goals such as ending the war, universal health care, energy independence, etc.  We pick the candidate we think will accomplish that goal best.  We are less concerned with punishing people for past behavior.

      Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision, it is a catalyst for action. It demands an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of hope and fear.

      by Agnostic Oracle on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:51:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  tell that to (0+ / 0-)

        the families of our dead troops, disabled troops and the Iraqi people

        •  Personally I'd rather end the war (6+ / 0-)

          Do you really believe that punishing the people who voted for this is more important than ending it?

          Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision, it is a catalyst for action. It demands an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of hope and fear.

          by Agnostic Oracle on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:01:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  how can you (0+ / 0-)

            believe that these people will end it? Look at their voting record, they love war. Its not punishing them, they have to live with their vote. But I shouldn't be made to either vote for them or give the election to a republican. The Dems should demand a better candidate. A true progressive, A true liberal. Liberals are not Pro-War, Pro-Torture, Pro-Credit Card companies. I wonder if john Edwards voted to confirm Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzales?

            •  I'm sorry (4+ / 0-)

              You clearly have a great deal of anger you are dealing with.  But I find little profit in revenge or purity.  Every one of those candidates is flawed, including my first choice Russ Feingold who isn't running anymore.  The perfect is the enemy of the good.

              Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision, it is a catalyst for action. It demands an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of hope and fear.

              by Agnostic Oracle on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:21:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not angry (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                chicago minx

                I just want a real Democrat to vote for, someone like Feingold, Gore, or Kennedy. These people are liberals. They didnot vote to kill my friends or the Iraqi people. They have proven that they can read too.

                •  I totally get what you are saying. (0+ / 0-)
                •  Just a reminder... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Agnostic Oracle, AUBoy2007, Quinton

                  that Kennedy voted for the Tonkin Resolution authorizing Johnson in 1964.

                  Vietnam took 58,000 American lives.

                  Yet you seem to hold others to a different standard.

                  •  I did not (0+ / 0-)

                    know that, I wasn't born till 1972. But if he voted to continue a war that was unjust and killed my fellow veterans then he's an idiot too.

                    •  just so you know (0+ / 0-)

                      i wouldn't be campaigning to recreate this if I were you

                      A 1968 Time article noted that "demonstrators constantly taunted the police and in some cases deliberately disobeyed reasonable orders."[2]
                      Despite the poor behavior of some protestors, there was widespread criticism that the Chicago police and National Guard used excessive force: a 1968 Time article declared that "With billy clubs, tear gas and Mace, the blue-shirted, blue-helmeted cops violated the civil rights of countless innocent citizens and contravened every accepted code of professional police discipline ... No one could accuse the Chicago cops of discrimination. They attacked hippies, yippies, New Leftists, dissident Democrats, newsmen, photographers, passers-by, clergymen and at least one cripple. Winston Churchill's journalist grandson got roughed up. Playboy's Hugh Hefner took a whack on the backside. The police also attacked a member of the British Parliament, Mrs. Anne Kerr, a vacationing Laborite who was maced outside the Conrad Hilton and hustled off to the lockup."[3] In 1968, Jo Freeman wrote, "Over three dozen newsmen were injured in their attempts to cover the action."[4]
                      In trying to explain his decision to quell the protests, Daley uttered one of the most famous quotes of the era: "The policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is there to preserve disorder."[5]


                      and wouldn't the more appropriate analogy be the Republican Convention of 2004?

                      I am aware of the fact there are people who pay attention to what I do and say, but I try to avoid customizing my behavior for them. -Ian MacKaye

                      by waitingforvizzini on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 04:46:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  With all due respect... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      how many times have you made this point in one way or another? Since you feel so strongly that he does not deserve a chance for our support, can you shift your focus on the positives and tell us what's so good about the potential nominee(s) that you are supporting and maybe you can convince us.

      •  Why must "real" (0+ / 0-)

        Democrats be positive and happy, My friends have died because democrats failed to read intellegence, they went along with two oil men. They voted to put our country into a war that we will never be able to leave. I will vote for a Democrat when the Democrats put up a true liberal.

    •  He has admitted he was wrong, which (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JSCram3254, nasarius, Quinton

      is more than what other candidates have been willing to do.  Some people can not admit they ever made a mistake; he admits it and wants to get us out of Iraq.  Don't think he has no conception of the suffering of military families; he has the constant reminder in the fact that his wife was the daughter of a career naval officer.  While her father was not a casualty, the family nevertheless had to endure many deployments, missed holidays, family events, birthdays and the like.  This is one reason, she is able to deal with her physical condition and provide focus and support for his candidacy.

      Although I did not agree with his vote on the war, I agree with his positions on most everything else and appreciate his background, having grown up in the south of meager beginnings.  As a Vietnam veteran, I also identify with Elizabeth, having missed three consecutive Christmases with my wife and three daughters.  Such is military life, but I feel lucky since some of my shipmates were never able to have another day with their loved ones.  Sorry to get off message.

    •  you seem to be... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nasarius, Quinton

      everywhere on this blog. having seen some of your other comments can lead one to surmise that you are clearly on a mission to bring down Edwards in particular. Although we do not agree, I respect your right to your beliefs and to campaign so vigorously for them.

      •  I am all over this (0+ / 0-)

        blog, Am I not supposed to be? Its not just Edwards. Clinton, Dodd, and Biden too. Any candidate that voted for this war must be gone. We must pressure the DNC for better candidates or

        •  the purpose of this site (0+ / 0-)

          This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable

          Maybe that explains the reception you are getting.

          I am aware of the fact there are people who pay attention to what I do and say, but I try to avoid customizing my behavior for them. -Ian MacKaye

          by waitingforvizzini on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 04:37:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Why is Gore not in the "Not running" poll? (0+ / 0-)

    Is Gore "not running" more, or less, than the other people "not running"? Excluding him seems pretty silly.

    That said, I'd be pretty happy with either of the two poll front-runners.

    When will the rest of the Democratic voters catch up with dKos on the question of Hillary Clinton?

    •  "not running" but used to be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Gore has never been "running", thus has never been in the poll, thus there is no back data for kos to show.

      1. Election Reform 2. Richardson 3. Edwards 4. Obama

      by bolson on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:39:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not a not running poll. It's the people who (0+ / 0-)

      were once included but are no longer.  Gore was never included.

      "No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown (-5.38, -6.77)

      by AUBoy2007 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:39:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gore is clearly a unique case because (0+ / 0-)

        he is, without a doubt, the most qualified candidate, and also because he MIGHT be running a different kind of campaign. Why not include his name and see how he polls? Is Kos afraid of what that will show?

        Where is it written in stone that only declared candidates names should be polled? Other organizations include Gore in their polls all the time. It's not like this is something official. It's just a blog for crying out loud.

        Is Markos trying to create a scenario where Gore doesn't run because he doesn't see that he has support in the netroots because they won't include his name in the polls? I am willing to bet that a large number of people who vote in these polls would vote for Gore if they thought he might run.

        Gore has six months to get into the race. Why does he need to be in it right now? The other candidates have some fine qualities, but let's face it, none of them holds a candle to Gore.

        I encourage others on this site to not let others set the agenda for you. If you think Gore is the best candidate, talk him up here and elsewhere- whether you think he is going to run or not. Do you want to settle for one of the other candidates, or have a truly great president elected in 2008?

        I also encourage everyone who agrees with this sentiment to use my signature line, which is...

        Gore 2008: Accept No Substitute!

        •  It's ALWAYS been Kos' policy to only include (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          declared candidates.  Before anyone has declared it is those who have either explicitly said they were running or were actually setting up campaigns (hiring staff, meeting with certain groups, etc).  Gore has done neither.

          Every time he posts a straw poll people argue for Gore.  Hell, I'd vote Gore.  But that's not what this is.  This is a poll of actual declared candidates.  Period.  It's why Clark was finally removed.  Because he put off his decision until later.

          Do I think Gore would be the best choice? Yes.  But I understand Kos' policy.  There's no agenda.  The agenda would be including Gore and no other potential candidates.

          "No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown (-5.38, -6.77)

          by AUBoy2007 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:33:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess I didn't (0+ / 0-)

            make my point clearly enough. I know that Kos only includes declared candidates. I asked why he doesn't include Gore.

            I said that Gore is a unique case and that he should be included. He isn't just some guy. He is clearly the most qualified candidate. He therefore merits special recognition.

            As I said, this is nothing official- it's only a blog.
            By the way, I love the saying (tagline, if I am using the correct term) at the end of your posts!

            Gore 2008: Accept NO Substitute!

            •  Gore does not deserve an exception. (0+ / 0-)

              Look, I want Gore to run.  I think Gore will make a wonderful president.  But Kos is trying to poll the people of this site on who they'd choose out of declared candidates.  Once you make one exception, you open the floodgates.  It's better to set a standard and stick to it.

              Is Markos trying to create a scenario where Gore doesn't run because he doesn't see that he has support in the netroots because they won't include his name in the polls?

              This is what bugged me from your original post.  You're accusing Kos of some sort of agenda when that's simply not the case.  He's laid out his policy and sticks to it.  How would it look to those who support someone like Clark if Gore was included and Clark wasn't?  They argue that he's special, just as you have argued that Gore is special.  Talk about the appearance of an agenda.

              (And they call it a signature line (sig line) around this parts, but thanks.  I like yours as well.)

              "No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown (-5.38, -6.77)

              by AUBoy2007 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:12:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK, I have got to be (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                clearer about this. I am saying Gore is unique. He is worthy of exception. Who else would the flood gates be open to? Wes Clark maybe (not in my opinion, but possibly in the minds of some here), but no other human being I can think of.

                I do not accuse Kos of what you say I accuse him of. I merely ask if this could be his motivation. As I have never met him or talked to him, I don't not state his reasons, I only speculate on what they might be.

                As I said earlier, what we are doing here is simply not official enough for "we have to stick to a standard". Who says?! This is politics- the art of the possible!

                I am really pleased to hear that you are a Gore supporter too. I am frustrated that people here are abandoning him way to early to support other candidates, and I definitely think his absence on these polls is a big contributor to that abandonment. I'm just saying, we are missing a tremendous opportunity, and in supporting candidates we know are inferior to Gore, we are making the good the enemy of the (nearly) perfect.

                Gore 2008: Accept NO Substitute!

                •  I know that you believe that (0+ / 0-)

                  Gore in unique.  And you may convincing evidence.  But that's not enough to include him because in the end, it's merely your opinion (albeit shared by more than a few).

                  Does there have to be some standard?  No, of course not.  No one thinks this is official or even statistically accurate.  But then the poll would not show what it purports to show.  Kos has choose to stick to a standard and I respect that.  It's his site and he can do that.  You can lobby for Gore's inclusion but it won't go anywhere, as evidenced before.

                  I think he should do two polls.  One with Gore and Clark and the one he does do.  The goal of this poll is not to induce Gore to enter or to cause him to decide not to enter.  If Gore is truly monitoring this site for that kind of information, he knows that there's a large amount of support here for him.  The idea that there's any anti-Gore reasoning behind Kos' standard of only including announced candidates at this point is silly.  Special or not, at this point he is not running for President.  So polling him doesn't show anything.

                  People aren't necessarily abandoning Gore, but feeling out alternatives, as Gore is not officially in the race.  It's smart, because if he stays out, you've got to vote for someone.  That's why I vote Edwards in these polls.  If Gore does not enter, that's who I'm voting for.

                  "No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown (-5.38, -6.77)

                  by AUBoy2007 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:36:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  simple solution to fix this: two polls (0+ / 0-)

                one with and one without Gore. Even some professional pollsters are doing this (recent CNN poll), then why can't or doesn't Kos (esp. when it costs him next to nothing to do this). That's my problem with Kos.

    •  I should be in the not running poll. (0+ / 0-)

      Although, I haven't officially decided.

      An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. (Woodrow Wilson)

      by Alter Ego Manifesto on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:40:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kucinich's Position on Issues; Obama's Charisma; (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Richarson's Diplomatic Skills and Edwards' Empathy for the Working Class.

    That's what I want for our Dem Candidate in '08!

    Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has had to overcome. Booker T Washington

    by Spoonfulofsugar on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:36:00 AM PDT

  •  Get Well Kos Family (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nanobubble, jct

    I am a big Edwards fan and Richardson second.  I think of Hillary and Obama as alike.  They both have the same plan for Iraq and they both get big Hollywood money and they both are the middle of the road.  Edwards and Richardson are out there taking chances and giving us big ideas.

  •  Richardson - candidate of the clueful (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MRL, nanobubble, zhimbo

    It seems he picked up much of his support from previous "no friggin' clue" and "other" voters (and Clark voters, I suppose).  

    Not a Richardson supporter, but I do like him and want to see him do better.  

    The interesting thing to me is that Obama has no upward momentum around here.  He needs to do something to break that ceiling... you can't win a DKos poll on charisma alone, and I think the DKos poll is a pretty reasonable leading indicator.

    Ever feel like you've been cheated?
    -Johnny Rotten

    by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:39:07 AM PDT

  •  Is it 2009 yet? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I got burned out from this race the moment Feingold withdrew.  I'm screwed, aren't I?

    An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. (Woodrow Wilson)

    by Alter Ego Manifesto on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:40:01 AM PDT

    •  actually, listening to the speeches made (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      at the afl cio, both edwards AND biden came off very strong - and richardson and dodd surprised me!

      was disappointed in the flagging energy of clinton & obama, but that was just one speech so far.

      i think we feingold supporters have a lot of "listening" to do to find our candidate, but i'm leaning edwards and biden at this point.

      soon as i got arthritis, most of my caps ran away from home! those that remain, huddle together in fear!

      by edrie on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:20:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Vilsack dropped out too early. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Look at those trends!  It's infinite growth from the second to last to the last month.

    Vilsack would be at a gajillion percent by now if he'd stayed in.

    The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

    by nightsweat on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:41:19 AM PDT

  •  Tasty Metrics (0+ / 0-)

    Thank you Kos, glad the wife will be okay, and keep up the work here! I love metrics.

  •  Likely voters are the key (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think this poll reflects the sentiment that I have seen here and in other places, that if you really get down to the level of likely voters in a presidential primary, the support level for Hillary Clinton really tumbles and the beneficiaries are Edwards and Obama.

    Richardson is an attractive candidate (unfortunately not in the "pretty boy" way that's de rigeur in today's political scene) who on paper is the most qualified candidate. I had the opportunity to hear him address a county Democratic crowd here in Broward, Florida and walked away very impressed. I'm just not sure that will translate into enough visibility to make him viable.

  •  Damn, HRC still at 3%, not going down further n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nasarius, frandor55

    17. Ne5

    In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

    by Spud1 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:56:36 AM PDT

  •  I'm one of the new votes for Richardson (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I've reconciled myself to Clark not running at this point.

    "When watchdogs, bird dogs, and bull dogs morph into lap dogs, lazy dogs, or yellow dogs, the nation is in trouble." - Ted Stannard

    by jrooth on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:56:48 AM PDT

  •  I like to think I'm an individual... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kiwing, nasarius, jct

    And yet my personal ranking is exactly the same as the group ranking: Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Clinton.

    Well, I place Clinton above "other" and "no freakin' clue", so I guess that's my bold stand against the crowd.

  •  Why (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MRL, jct

    don't you stick the poll under recommended diaries, and leave the vote open for more than one day or less?

    I've been all over this site and never saw it.
    Keeps happening, too.

    "The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." ~ Robert F. Kennedy

    by John Poet on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:02:00 AM PDT

    •  It's an evil plot ... (0+ / 0-)

      to keep us all here clicking "refresh" 24 hours a day.

      "When watchdogs, bird dogs, and bull dogs morph into lap dogs, lazy dogs, or yellow dogs, the nation is in trouble." - Ted Stannard

      by jrooth on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:06:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kos We Need a running list of FP diaries (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      benny05, Allogenes

      When there are quick posts it can be a long scroll down and we miss good diaries.  I do scroll now more, but I would like and easy quick list at the top.

      It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

      by pioneer111 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:09:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What the general KOS concensus is about Hillary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    doesn't resonate in the rest of the
    country. The American public will make
    up its mind. Hillary is hated here,
    but don't expect it to translate to the
    nomination. If she's nominated, I'll
    vote for her over ANY freaking Republican.

  •  Drop Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel and (0+ / 0-)

    include Feingold, Gore and Clark for the next poll.  Include a second choice as well to see further into the strength of the candidates and possible candidates.

  •  Richardson 's a Pro Dem&Open Gvnmt nightmare. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He put's Corporate Interest Republicans to shame.  He is the hugest "pay for play" in local government, I am terrified to imagine him on a National level.  His over spending for his donors and not providing for the citizens is terrifying.

    And talk about top down control... he takes secret to a new level as well.

    Richardson wheels and deals and is not good at governing for the people.

  •  KOS...hope the wife is Okay.... (0+ / 0-)

    And on Richardson....there is something about Governors that you cannot overlook.  I predict he will find his way into the TOP TIER before the Summer is over.  Interesting Poll.  Keep up the good work.

    •  Oh, silly Dems (0+ / 0-)

      Do we learn nothing?

      Establishment candidates ALWAYS get the nomination.  Look at 2004?  Kerry's poll numbers dropped during the year run up.  He was virtually written off by pundits.  Who got the nom?

      Although my vote is going elsewhere, if I were a betting man I'd put all my money on Hillary.

      Of course, Edwards wins on the DKos poll.  He's the only candidate who's offered specific plans.  But that means nothing in the hard and dirty game of politics.

      It's all about establisment ties and organization.  Hillary has them.  None of the rest do.  It's as simple as that.

  •  Whether or not you realize it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Richardson is running for vice president.  He's not as stupid as he looks!

  •  I must be from Venus/Mars? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, Yoshimi, Berkeley Vox

    Yes, my friends know me as a liberal/progressive, and yes I am not a HRC backer, more leaning to Obama, but I am TOTALLY amazed that within the dKos community HRC draws less than 5%. I am not suggesting the results are rigged, but how on god's green earth can there be such a significant disparity?  

    •  I'm actually glad she polls poorly here... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, Yoshimi

      ...think about it: back in 2000, the progressive/netroots crowd OVERWHELMINGLY backed Ralph Nader.  It was perhaps the most disastrous move in the history of Democratic politics -- they voted for Nader because SOMEHOW Gore wasn't "green" enough.

      In 2004, people thought Howard Dean was the Second Coming and he fizzled out in dramatic fashion.  I love the progressive crowd's idealism, but when it comes to picking a candidate who can win, their collective track record isn't great.

      Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

      by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:37:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are on to something. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Berkeley Vox

        The "netroots" tend to root against the system (see Nader and Dean) and those who run against rarely win.

        •  They're VERY idealistic (0+ / 0-)

          Check out Obama's promise to bring universal health care in just 4 years, and Edwards' promise to withdraw immediately from Iraq, etc.  That's red-meat for the netroots crowd, but more mainstream voters tend to shy away from it.

          A presidential candidate has to be "for" something in order to win.  Elections are about the future, not about settling scores from the past.  That's the ultimate lesson / mantra from Bill Clinton's era.

          Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

          by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:50:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's odd... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nasarius, Quinton

            as Edwards has shown plenty about what he's for.

            He has laid it out more than anyone else.  Those others are dealing in aspiration, which, to me, is idealistic.

          •  Ha (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            A presidential candidate has to be "for" something in order to win.  Elections are about the future, not about settling scores from the past.  That's the ultimate lesson / mantra from Bill Clinton's era.

            I just found this funny.  Important to look to the "future"... buy reminding people of the "past".

            Hillary's campaign has been very much about nostalgia for the 90s.  Sure, they were better then 00-07 under Bush, but I dont want the 90s back - I want a new era, new ideas, new plans...

            Plus in the 90s I had acne, few girlfriends, and lived with my parents - so Im biased, haha.

            Blue Indiana -- I support John Edwards in 2008

            by BWasikIUgrad on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:44:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that it's quite the same... (0+ / 0-)

        as in 2004.  I was here.

        Dean would have easily garnered 80%.  There is much more diversity here and across the netroots.

        Still, while the netroots has a greater influence than its numbers would indicate, it's still very small.

  •  Someone help me here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's April of 2007, right?  So why the hell is "No fucking clue" (which is how I voted) down to only 5%???

    Draw up a grid, either on paper or just envisage it mentally.  Candidates on the vertical axis, the top 6 to 10 issues across the horizontal.  How many of those squares can you fill in with a reasonable depiction of what each candidate is proposing for those issues?  Not what you'd like, not what you think s/he is most likely to propose or do, not rumors, but actual positions from the candidates.

    This far out, with such a wicked good set of candidates I don't see how anyone can be settled on just one person already.  Hell, most people here spend more time shopping for a car or filling out their NCAA bracket.

    I will admit this much: I've narrowed my choice down to a Dem.  I will vote for the Dem in 11/2008, no matter who it is.  As for the primary, I'm still filling in my chart.

  •  Richardson on Gonzales (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    9 minutes in he praises Gonzales and gives him the benefit of the doubt.

    -posted for those who wanted the quotes earlier.

  •  "Hence the echo chamber effect." (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, Yoshimi

    I too am very concerned that we are listening to our own sonar. Not good.

  •  Hmmm...20,000 in the poll...fewer than the (0+ / 0-)

    voting population of my rural county.  A drop in the meaningless bucket.  Oh, well....

    Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

    by oldpro on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:27:45 AM PDT

    •  Reality Time (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caldonia, Berkeley Vox

      Hillary still looks to have the winning combination.    

      •  How do you get to that kind of altered reality? (0+ / 0-)

        How do you confuse winning with leading?  How do you get her to 50% + 1?  With money?  You must be new to presidential politics; because if a candidate has the kind of negative factor, even among Dems, that Senator Clinto has, all the money in the world won't help her.  In fact, it will do just the opposite.  It will calcify the negative opinions.  There are no "winner take all" primaries in the Democratic Party.  You have to go to the GOP for that.  This is proportional, and in a three way/four way race, this goes to Denver to decide.  No Hillary, no way.

  •  Stunning (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    how low Hillary's support is here.

    Edwards just keeps on climbing.

  •  Check Out that Edwards Trendline (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StealthAmerica, Quinton, okamichan13

    Up from 8% in May 2006 to 42.7% in April 2007!

    He's won over the majority of Feingold-backers, the majority fo Clark-backers, lots of Gore-backers and lots of Warner-backers.

    I predict he'll be at 50% by YearlyKos!

  •  Essentially a freeped poll. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What is this supposed to prove other than the fact the fact that Hillary isn't very popular with Kos posters. It's a real bad case of navel gazing. What would we say about a poll measuring say Edwards popularity on Redstate. Idiotic. Take a look in the mirror.  

    •  We may not like it, but Otto's got a point (0+ / 0-)

      I've said before and will say again -- this election will not be won on the internet. However, if every person who votes for Edwards here translates that into action out THERE, canvassing, fundraising, handing out flyers, writing letters to the editor, just calling their friends and encouraging them to check out Edwards' positions and issues...

      Then this poll becomes, in fact, pretty damn meaningful after all :)

    •  Otto meet Base (0+ / 0-)

      Base meet Otto.

      What offends you about a poll of the Hardcore leftist base otto?

      "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl.

      by cdreid on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 05:29:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The real story - Edwards nearly at 50% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Richardson's increase is great and all, and Obama is holding steady, but Edwards is kicking ass around here, ain't he?

    JRE 2008
    "We should ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."
    -John Edwards

    by DrFrankLives on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:42:40 PM PDT

  •  Obama has yet to give a clear position... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    when it comes to the issue of smothering children with pillows.  Until then, I'm going with Edwards.

    I'm surprised I haven't seen that on the front page yet.

    •  Now that you mention it (0+ / 0-)

      Neither Hillary nor Obama have come out against childsmothering have they? Hmmmm makes ya think..

      "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl.

      by cdreid on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 05:36:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The "real world" (0+ / 0-)

    bases its choices on name recognition alone at this stage. It isnt til the real campaigning begins that they actually make a decision.

    So.. Hillary.. famous for being married to bill.. elected for being married to bill.. is of course going to win any name recognition contest.

    Edwards, Richardson, Obama are actual democrats as opposed to Liebercrats. You can bet the base will eventually chose one of them over a moderate republican any day.. regardless of who that republican marries.

    "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl.

    by cdreid on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 05:34:47 PM PDT

  •  Love Edwards, Voted for Richardson (0+ / 0-)

    I worked for Edwards last time and I really like his charisma and domestic agenda.  However, I worry about his total lack of executive and foreign policy experience.  Richardson fits that bill, and he'll not only get us out of Iraq but be able to run a regional peace conference to fix the mess Bush has created.  I don't buy that Richardson can do those things as Secretary of State.  We need Jimmy Carter-style Oval Office leadership on the Middle East.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site