Skip to main content

My operating theory of how Obama wins the nomination goes like this:

Hillary has the early lead based on name ID. But the more voters realize there are alternatives, the more they'll stray from Hillary. Since she has no room to grow (her negatives are huge), she has but one way to go -- down. And as she erodes support, and as other candidates gain on her, her support will crash as her cobbled-together old-school coalition turns on itself.

It's not happening yet.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has moved to a double-digit lead over her closest Democratic presidential rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), according to a USAToday/Gallup poll released on Monday [...]

Polling data showed Clinton leading Obama 39 percent to 26 percent in a Democratic primary race that does not include former Vice President Al Gore. With Gore in the match-up, Clinton leads Obama 33 percent to 21 percent.

An earlier USAToday/Gallup survey conducted June 1-3 had put Obama 1 percentage point ahead of Clinton, at 30 percent to 29 percent.

So is Hillary running away with this thing? Let's look back to 2004 Gallup polling for some perspective.

6/12-18/2003

Lieberman 21
Gephardt 17
Kerry 13
Graham 7
Dean 7
Edwards 6
Sharpton 6
Moseley Braun 5

And get this -- Lieberman was actually slightly up from May, and up from 15 percent in March.

Let's fast forward all the way to August:

8/4-6/2003

Lieberman 23
Gephardt 13
Dean 12
Kerry 10
Edwards 5
Moseley Braun 5
Sharpton 4

Wow. But then Labor Day happened, and people started "paying attention". Then look at what happened:

9/8-10/2003

Gephardt 16
Dean 14
Lieberman 13
Kerry 12
Edwards 5
Moseley Braun 4
Sharpton 2

The whole field was shuffled around. Lieberman never recovered.

Now you want to be blown away? Look at the numbers before, then after Iowa (January 19) and New Hampshire (January 27):

     1/9-11  1/29-2/1

Dean     26   14
Clark    20    9
Kerry     9   49
Lieberman 9    5
Edwards   7   13
Gephardt  7  n/a

Being a blogger has been on-the-job training for me. I was obsessive about the presidential polls in 2003. Then, as you see above, they meant squat. Kerry had 9 percent heading into Iowa. He won the thing easily. I learned my lesson.

These months are an opportunity for candidates to raise money, build organization, hone their message, and prep for the storm that'll hit them in September when they'll enter the stretch run of the race. At this point, the numbers mean little, and candidates have little incentive to lead the horse race.

As for those national polls, will they be as irrelevant this cycle as in 2004? Perhaps. We have a de facto national primary this year, so they may be a bit more relevant. Or maybe the country will bend its will to Iowa and New Hampshire again, as they did four years ago.

These are uncharted waters. But one thing's for sure, those national polls are currently predictive of nothing (though not useless, since they help drive fundraising and media coverage).

So will my Obama/Hillary theory hold? We still have a while to go before we can find out.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:35 AM PDT.

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

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  The one thing is that the top 3 candidates (29+ / 0-)

    were/are significantly better known from the start nationally this year than any of the candidates in 2004 except for Lieberman.

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

    by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:34:54 AM PDT

    •  It's interesting. (14+ / 0-)

      That when you put it like this:

      Lieberman  21
      Gephardt   17
      Kerry      13

      It seems to me the parallel is:

      Clinton   39
      Obama     26
      Edwards   13

      Support the Troops. End the War.

      by chuckles1 on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:54:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Right. There is a different dynamic. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vets74, lockiecharms, pamelabrown

      Hillary Clinton has a loyalist base 25-30%.

      Obama has a built in loyalist base around 20-25%.

      Edwards has a smaller loyalist group around 10-15%

      Gore could easily count on 30% if he declared.

      There are Identity politics in the mix this time. There are very strong camps.  No such camps existed like that outside of Dean and his following was more myth than reality.

      Also These 2003 polls were conducted during war fever. Lieberman was 'vindicated' he was also the Gore VP. He had residual affection that he betrayed as 2003-04 unfolded.

      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

      by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:06:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Half of Clintons loyalist base (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yoduuuh do or do not

        thinks Bill is gonna be calling the shots.

        When they find out that is not the case, they will flee.

        Who knows where. If Gore is there they might get caught in his orbit.

        I have talked to a dozen "clinton" supporters out in the meatspace, and all are extreme low information voters.

        The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa

        by NCrefugee on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:15:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  excuse me (9+ / 0-)

          but her loyalist base are women.  You may think they are low information voters but I would be careful saying that to their faces, skippy.

          •  WaPo poll last week (9+ / 0-)

            put Hillary's biggest support among women as those with a high school degree or less. Women who were more likely to go for Obama had a college degree or more, as a majority.
            Now that doesn't necessarily mean female Hillary supporters are "low-information" but... draw your own conclusions.

            Sad songs are nature's onions

            by fredo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:58:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm pretty sure I read that Clinton (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KnowVox

              lead among women in that group as well, but that Obama was closer in this group, not that he had a majority.

            •  Salt of the earth in my book. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lorelynn, KnowVox

              .

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:13:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  fredo, your comment is so interesting (6+ / 0-)

              Recently, I attended a blues festival in north Florida with 3 highly educated, older and financially secure women.  All for Hillary.  When I broached the subjects of the DLC, corporatist stances, high negatives and dynasty politics they treated me like a tolerable left-wing nut.  This anecdotal experience runs counter to your post. Granted, their lives are politically-obssessed free, unlike mine.

              •  all 3 Wellsley grads no doubt. nt (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lippythelion69
              •  I said "draw your own conclusions" (0+ / 0-)

                And as far as the bare FACTS of the poll, I think I stand corrected by masslib. Fair enough.
                I'll keep my own opinion though, and I don't mind sharing it.
                Just say no to "corporatist stances, high negatives and dynasty politics."

                Sad songs are nature's onions

                by fredo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:29:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It is so freaking hard (0+ / 0-)

                  to talk about Hillary, polls, women voters and their respective degrees of educaiton without coming across as sexist or classist, and I am most definitely neither.
                  Let's just all admit it, we have our favorites, and some of us (yours truly) have one or more (Hillary) we just absolutely cannot stand, and we all have our reasons for feeling that way.
                  I'll admit, if that poll showed women going overboard for Obama or Edwards, I would be touting that poll as evidence of a breakthrough, and a very good thing indeed.
                  I think, however, that Hillary's high negatives will sink her, and if we allow her to make it to the general election we will be committing party suicide.
                  I RESPECTFULLY disagree with Hillary supporters. Sorry, but you won't change my mind, and I probably won't change yours.

                  Sad songs are nature's onions

                  by fredo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:58:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  If Hillary can get them to vote (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KnowVox

              It will be a fantastic accomplishment for the Democratic party--they are historically the lowest-turnout group, as well as one that is a natural constituency for Democrats (if we can just get them to register and VOTE).

              "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 Jun 19, 2007 at 12:39:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  At the risk of inviting more feminist outrage... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geotpf, Native Light, ShadowSD

            A recent LA Times poll showed Clinton's lead is not among women of all socioeconomic classes, but specifically women without a college education and/or lower income groups. Which is not to say that they are "low information" voters--perhaps they understand their political interests in different terms than wealthier and more educated women--but historically these groups are less likely to vote.

            "What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" - J. Madison

            by berith on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:59:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, yes. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PLS

            The "Hillary has a vagina, so I'm voting for her" sect.

            Bill Clinton recommended Kerry consider "endorsing the Bush proposal for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."

            by JR Hawks on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:47:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I love this stuff (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gustynpip

          If you can't come up with a persuasive way to state your case, by all means, please call supporters of the other candidate idiots.

          I have talked to a dozen "clinton" supporters out in the meatspace, and all are extreme low information voters

          So they're not only stupid, they're extremely stupid.  Excellent.  I'm definitely persuaded now.

          "I don't want to bring politics into this, I'm just here for the drugs." Nancy Reagan, at a "Just Say No" event, 1986

          by Jack109 on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 08:26:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Pathetic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE, Native Light

        All of these figures are based on useless national polls that include far too many non-caucus/primary voters.  You have no idea how big the loyalist base of any candidate is among actual primary/caucus goers and you have no idea how much that could change.  By acting like you know everything you have just shown us all that in fact you know nothing.

    •  Neither Clinton or Obama will get nod (0+ / 0-)

      in the general election. Populace hasn't changed that much since Oldtimer and I were involved in Presidential politics. Clinton has too many negatives, and Obama will not seem so "new" by the time the primaries are held. If one of them does get the nomination, look for Romney to be the next President. If Bloomberg and Hagel run as Independents, highly unlikely, it will take some counting to see how that race would affect the general.I suspect a lot of independents would fall to them, which would hurt the Democratic nominee worse than the Republican.

      As the topic here is the eventual ticket, still don't think it will be Hillary. And, again, Obama won't seem as new. Can't decide about Edwards or the rest. I, unfortunately am waiting for Go(dot)re.

      I think, therefore I am, I think.

      by mcmom on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:22:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

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

        It's still too early for honest dissection.  Hillary is putting on a good show but still generates too much controversy.  However, she wouldn't win the general election. The democrats need to win back the White House.  Let's accomodate that idea.  

  •  You get no argument from me n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zhimbo, NogodsnomastersMary
  •  I hope things change, BUT (11+ / 0-)

    To me, Hillary is looking a lot like W did in 2000.  The preordained, anointed one who the media thought was sure to get the nomination.  None of the media were calling the Democratic nominee in 2004 this early.

    I finally put in a signature!

    by Boris Godunov on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:35:37 AM PDT

    •  dems have nevr been like Republicans in that way (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      berith, vets74, ShadowSD

      in additon Mccain was not acceptable to base republicans, Obama is to dems even if hillary may be some's first choice, electability and Hillary's negative coattails in a general election is her aschilles heal.

      put the money in the bag http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/rich222

      by nevadadem on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:37:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Basically right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jake Nelson, Geotpf

        Here are the elections in the modern primary era when we haven't had a sitting President or Vice President in the race:

        1. Bill came out of nowhere, but we had no frontrunner because the "big names" looked at Bush Sr.'s 91% approval rating after the first Gulf War and took a pass.
        1. Dukakis beat out Gephardt.  Jackson never had a real shot, and Hart's implosion left a void.
        1. Mondale was the anointed one and Hart's insurgency (and Biden's flameout) could not overcome him.
        1. Carter did inspire the masses and beat several more established candidates.
        1. Many more established candidates than McGovern went down (some aided by the Nixon crew's dirty tricks).  The biggest name would have been Ted Kennedy, who took a pass.

        Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire -8.25, -6.51

        by Superribbie on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:35:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  92 Clinton did not come out of nowhere (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pine, LanceBoyle, vets74

          Dukakis and the Dems gave him prime speaking time at the convention and he had been building his campaign ever since that day in '88.  And he courted the press like nobody else ever had, with a heavyweight team including Stephonoplous and Carville.  IMO he got unfair bias from the press in his favor throughout the primary.  It was absurd.  It was a credit to Brown and Tsongas that they ever did so well.

    •  Ok, but... (17+ / 0-)

      ...there are two key differences:

      1. Hillary actually is qualified to be president.
      1. Democratic voters tend to select candidates who would make good presidents. Granted, Hillary fits the bill, but we have better candidates.
    •  GOLD RULES. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dotster, KansasLiberal

      That is the message of the dynasty-lovers.

      You will see it over and over in mainstream media. This morning "Tweety" called it The Inevitability Factor.

      This diary is wonderful as a counter. But i'm not sure it wouldn't work just fine with Republicans.

      The GOP like being effective followers. They like order and they like predictability.

      "Daddy" Giuliani is the latest re-hash of these tendencies.

      Democrats are anything BUT followers. As you can see here at DKOS, lefties are ready to attack any leader. Look at the hatred directed at patient, smart, careful Harry Reid and Pelosi.

      Imagine the feeding/whining frenzy when the negatives get rolling on Mrs. Clinton. She's maybe 1/3 as likeable as Pelosi. She ain't got a chance.

      Despite the tens of millions spent on her campaign.

      Jefferson and the Dixie Chicks. Imus and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

      by vets74 on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:57:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (absent a Gore candidacy) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boris Godunov, LakersFan

      I don't think that you can compare HRC as front-runner to Liebertoad.  Even though Democrats didn't know, back in 2003 and early 2004, how much of a weasely Bush-loving war-monger Liebertoad was, they realized pretty quickly that they couldn't stand his pedantic, self-righteous tone.  I know that there are a lot of folks who dislike HRC here, but by comparison she is Humility Personified. She has a lot more depth to her support than Liebertoad ever did.  All he had was name recognition, and that was just relative to the other 2004 contenders.

      And yeah, she is qualified to be President.  If Gore doesn't get in (yes, yes, I know....) I may wind up supporting her.  I am going to a meeting with one of her campaign officials tomorrow (not a fund-raiser, a friend invited me and I'm going out of curiousity) and I'll be interested to hear what this person says about the war and other foreign policy issues.

      David Broder is journalism's Alberto Gonzales.

      by litigatormom on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:03:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  2003 was a weak field (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KansasLiberal

        Hillary, for one, gave it a pass. Many potential candidates were afraid of running against the "War President," figuring that it would take more than a couple of years for "W" to lose his post-9/11 popularity and that whoever opposed him in 2004 would be a sacrificial lamb. This year is different--the current assumption is that whoever the Dem nominee is, they will have the advantage over the Republican.

        "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 Jun 19, 2007 at 01:14:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If Clinton had run in 2004 the GOP cries of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pozzo

          "opportunist!" would have caused permanent hearing loss in a significant part of the population.  She was at that point not even four years into her first term in the Senate.  She would have gotten the same rap some people now give Obama, plus all the Billary baggage.

          David Broder is journalism's Alberto Gonzales.

          by litigatormom on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:30:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Differences (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jake Nelson, dotster

      The main differences I see with 2004 are that Obama and HRC will not draw the long knives on each other like Dean and Gephardt did in Iowa -- and they will not make the mistake of sending an army of sock hatted supporters to scare the hell out of the farmers.  I was - and am - a huge Dean supporter.  He would be my automatic first pick if he was running.  But his campaign made big mistakes in Iowa.  Clinton and Obama won't make those mistakes.

      Meet me in Cognito, baby

      by out grrl on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:40:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm from Ia. and I just got a (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pine, Jake Nelson

        laugh from your comment about "an army of sock hatted supporters to scare the hell out of the farmers".  Someone should have told them to wear those billed freebies that they hand out free at the seed companies or farm machinery businesses.  Would have fit right in and not been so spooky.

        •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pine, Jake Nelson

          There were so many things that seemed like such a good idea at the time.  I went to college in Nebraska and I think there would have been a similar reaction - something along the lines of "Scary Hippies!".  At least they could have made the UI colors or something.  Live and learn.

          Meet me in Cognito, baby

          by out grrl on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:50:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ha! (0+ / 0-)

            I'm not from that region of the country, but by an odd coincidence, I was in Lincoln, Nebraska the night of the Iowa caucuses. It was rather hilarious to hear people "chattering" about it the next day in a coffeehouse.

            •  Lincoln (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pine

              Lincoln is a pretty fun town.  I could tell many stories that would get me in trouble.  Was it "The Coffee House" or the one in the Haymarket where they roast the beans in the shop?  And Nebraskans are very practical.  When you are snowed in 4 months out of the year you develop a stoic practicality.

              Meet me in Cognito, baby

              by out grrl on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:27:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't recall (0+ / 0-)

                I think it was the one in the Haymarket, but I don't recall with absolute certainty. I just remember that it was very, very cold and that a lot of the people around me seemed like caricatures out of Sherwood Anderson's novel Winesburg, Ohio.

                I was in town to tour the UNL, which had offered me a spot in one of their graduate programs. Despite really liking the program and Lincoln's cheap cost of living, I ended up declining the offer because I couldn't deal with the miserable weather and the thought of being an openly gay male there terrified me.

                •  Gay (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  pine

                  I was an out lesbian in Nebraska in 1990.  I don't know about the climate for gay men, but I didn't have much trouble.  The attitude in most places was "if you have a problem with it, leave".  But then, a lot of straight men don't have nearly the same attitudes towards lesbians that they do toward gay men.

                  But the cold.  Yeah.  Nothing like having your sinus cavity freeze every time you breathe in.

                  Meet me in Cognito, baby

                  by out grrl on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:51:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary's "inevitable" nomination can crumble (0+ / 0-)

      Her campaign's lead in the polls is much more important to her eventual success than to any other campaign getting high numbers at this point.  Her lead is like armor, protecting her viability as a candidate.

      Everyone already knows her, and because her polarized, emotional "like/dislike" numbers have even supporters a bit uneasy about her "electability," should her numbers falter, her candidacy will crumble.

    •  why in the world would we have to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      costello7

      accept the nominee that the corporate media annoints?  In fact the more they keep saying that Hillary is inevitable, the more I want to run the other way---as fast as I can.

  •  But doesn't Obama have wide name recognition too? (6+ / 0-)

    Granted, everybody knows who Hillary is, but how high is Obama's name recognition? I can't imagine there are very many people who don't know who he is at this point.

    Or Edwards for that matter.

    No, I think if this theory holds, it'll open the door for one of the second-tier candidates.

  •  But again, in '04 we wanted to wrap it up (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RallyPoint, jj32

    quickly to get on to challenging Bush.

    •  And how did that turned out? (0+ / 0-)

      I'm afraid if this thing is wrapped up early again, then the so-called MSM will be hankering for Bloomberg to jump in as a third party candidate.

      Not that he has a chance in hell of winning but the Bloomberg story will be around just to keep the pundits from going bonkers for seven months before the late August convention.

      •  Terribly. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal, potownman

        I'm not saying it didn't.  I was for Clark and was frustrated at the rush to get Kerry the nomination.  I knew he could never win and it just killed me to watch that whole election cycle because it turned out just the way I thought and I was in a fetal position when Bush won.

        •  Kerry (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chicago minx

          Was exactly the candidate Rove wanted to run against.

          Of course, IMHO (as well), he did win...something about those massive Ohio shenanigans...

          To announce...that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

          by potownman on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:25:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  American voters (11+ / 0-)

    will drive me to drink.
    C'mon Al!

    "Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." George W. Bush 12/7/06

    by kitebro on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:37:04 AM PDT

  •  Hillary's edge with women voters will be very (11+ / 0-)

    tough to overcome.   Obama has his work cut out for him.

    Taking the tough votes on this issue - rather than just taking potshots from the outside - should be praised as important steps in helping to end this war."

    by Geekesque on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:37:27 AM PDT

  •  re (9+ / 0-)

    Celine Dion will bring her down to single digits...

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...

    (snarkish)

    "Celine Dion??!? Steve Holt will not vote for her for that reason alone." - Steve Holt

    by cookiesandmilk on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:37:34 AM PDT

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

      ...I love "Snarkish": sounds like a new language, to wit:

      Joe Klein's writings in the 1990s were so often wrong that experts thought they might be Early-Middle Snarkish.  However, subsequent painstaking forensic linguistic analysis has found they were just Pure Bullshit.

    •  Celine Dion sells a lot of records (0+ / 0-)

      and frankly, I'd be more optimistic of the chances of a candidate whose supporters are into bland pop crap than those who like the same music I do, since whatever I like tends to be less than popular. This is, after all, a popularity 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 Jun 19, 2007 at 01:34:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No Early Democratic Frontrunner (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShadowSD, costello7

    Has won the White House in my lifetime.

    Just sayin'

  •  As shitty as Obama's campaign (7+ / 0-)

    is going I almost think He is running a screen for Hillary in order to get the VP slot

    "We will get fooled again" Me

    by givemhellHarryR on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:37:54 AM PDT

  •  The advent of ST. HILLARY is inevitable. (3+ / 0-)

    Resistance is futile, puny earthlings.

    "Our knobs go up to 11."

    by Cartoon Peril on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:37:59 AM PDT

    •  They said that about (4+ / 0-)

      Dean too. Going into Iowa he had all the money, all the endorsements, all the press.

      It didn't matter. It won't this time, either.

      •  Dean didnt have any endorsements other than Gore (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cartoon Peril

        just wanted to keep the record straight.

        The world is so cold and the rythmn is your blanket, wrap yourself up in it, if you love it then you'll thank it.

        by Ajax the Greater on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:48:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And SEIU, to keep the record straight.n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cartoon Peril

          The truth doesn't need a noise machine. It just needs people who will stand up for it.

          by expatjourno on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:07:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And, actually, a lot more. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mmacdDE, potownman, Cartoon Peril

          Though Dean lagged in early endorsements, he acquired many critical ones as his campaign snowballed. By the time of the Iowa caucuses, he led among commitments from superdelegates — elected officials and party officers entitled to convention votes by virtue of their positions. On November 12, 2003, he received the endorsements of the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Dean received the endorsement of former Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore, on December 9, 2003. In the following weeks Dean was endorsed by former U.S. senators Bill Bradley and Carol Moseley Braun, unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidates from the 2000 and 2004 primaries, respectively.

          Other high-profile endorsers included:[15]

             * Governors (and former Governors) Bruce Babbitt, Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., Jim McGreevey, Toney Anaya, Ann Richards
             * Senators (and former Senators) Tom Harkin, Fred R. Harris, Howard Metzenbaum, Jim Jeffords, Patrick Leahy
             * Representatives (and former Representatives) Jesse Jackson, Jr., John Conyers, Major Owens, Sheila Jackson Lee
             * Baltimore Mayor Martin J. O'Malley

          Several celebrities from the entertainment industry also endorsed him, including Martin Sheen, Rob Reiner, Susan Sarandon, Paul Newman, and Robin Williams[16]

          Many pundits would blame such endorsements for the campaign's eventual collapse. Dean was running as an outsider, and accepting the support of such establishment figures was seen by some as hypocritical.

          Source: Wikipedia

          The truth doesn't need a noise machine. It just needs people who will stand up for it.

          by expatjourno on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:09:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  True but Dean (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, Cartoon Peril, Lobsters, kipzoo

        wasn't Hillary. Hillary and Bill Clinton are a powerhouse like no other. Bush family has the money, but they also have a differeent kind of baggage in the eyes of the American people, and with this latest Bush Geedubya stint, I would imange that the Clinton era is looking sweeter every day.

      •  No they didn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cartoon Peril

        Dean never had the  backing of the powers-that-be.

        "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 Jun 19, 2007 at 02:00:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary needs to DROP OUT NOW! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KansasLiberal

    She needs to drop out and let a serious, viable candidate be nominated, and stop burning Democratic campaign funds, time and energy  on a FOOL'S MISSION.

  •  couldn't agree more: present polls are totally (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, mmacdDE, berith, mihan, costello7

    irrelevant.
    Hillary's lead is due to name recognition, she's been campaigning for fifteen years, half the country think the "Clinton" in question is Bill.
    By now she has all the support she's ever likely to have, and can only go down.
    Let's wait and see what the polls say this time next year.

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

    by Lepanto on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:38:15 AM PDT

  •  au contraire (12+ / 0-)

    I believe Hillary has a lot of upside...her negs are high, but they're mushy. Or whatever ya'll call it. Not firm (ick, shades of Dole)...um...you know. Squishy?

    I think that after seeing her perform in the debates, and seeing the reactions to her performance, she can climb that mountain of negatives, and seems to relish the thought.

    Since the negs were create by poo flinging monkey brained idiots (rush, etc), they're a false construct, and can be overcome.

    Sorry the smart money is on Hillary this time. But any of em I'll be happy to work for.

    •  Bingo (5+ / 0-)

      This is the thing people who cite the Hillary negatives almost never mention--they're soft opinions.  Hillary has been defined by the whack jobs on the right for so long that people are just now getting to know who she really is.  I've heard several people who interviewed her comment on how warm and personable she is.  This is remarkable in that it totally contradicts the right wing image of her, and it's always clear that the speaker was, in fact, surprised by this fact.

      The number one thing that will help Hillary Clinton in this cycle is simply its absurd length.  That gives her and her team the time they need to show people that "everything they know is wrong" about her, and re-introduce her to the public.  

      I think that by far the biggest single moment in the debates (either party) so far was when she slapped down Blitzer(?) for asking yet another idiotic question.  Because of her gender she had to walk an exceedingly fine line--look and sound tough and presidential, but not come across like a harpie.  And she hit it dead solid perfect.  In those few seconds she probably changed a lot of opinions.  

      She's looking more presidential to the mainstream voters and with recent stumbles from the competition they're making it easier for her.

      As I've said before, don't expect her to lose this nomination; someone else will have to run a better campaign and beat her.  Increasingly, it's looking like Al Gore is the only one who can muster the gravitas to do that.

      And for the record, I'm still in the "no freakin' clue" category on a pick.  It's still too early to make a choice.

      •  good analysis (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alice in Florida

        you make some compelling points.

        The most interesting of which is the length of the campaign. I agree, this will only work to her benefit, especially since she is a remarkably disciplined candidate.

        One thing I (poli junkie) love about her campaign is spotting the subdued tactical brilliance. It makes me think everything her campaign does is for a reason...which is I'm sure an overstatement.

        It's kind of like being high and seeing a conspiracy in every commercial.

        •  I watched her this morning on CNN (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yoshimi

          and was Shocked, Shocked, I say, to discover I was quite impressed with her.  In fact, if I didn't find so many of her positions quite offensive and horrendous, I'd be very excited about her.  So those that don't look at candidates from that angle, but rather from the concept of "charisma", will be heading in her direction the more they see of her.  I, however, will still be hoping for an alternative.  But if she's our candidate, I'll be out there with the rest getting out the vote for her.

      •  Yes... (0+ / 0-)

        What the folks who cite Hillary's high negatives don't seem to realise is that she has been demonized to an unprecedented degree by the rightwing. She has been accused of everything from fraud to murder. There is literally nothing they can throw at her that hasn't been heard before.

        Her negs are high because of the way the GOP and their dogs in the press have portrayed her. And she has not actively done much to counter that up to now. I'd argue that her negatives actually can't get much higher than they are now. For the low-info voter who's only heard one side for 15 years, they can go down.

        For the record, I do not support Hillary and will not vote for her unless she is the nominee for the general.

        Full Disclosure: I support A Democrat for President in 2008. (-4.50,-3.54)

        by SouthernFried on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:30:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's all about New Hampshire (6+ / 0-)

    Edwards is expected to win Iowa, and if he does so, it's not newsworthy unless Hillary finishes a DISTANT third or Richardson upsets her for that place. If Obama wants to drive a stake through the heart of the Clinton campaign, New Hampshire is the place to do it. It's supposed to be her stronghold among the early states and she's expected to win there. If Obama can knock her flat there, he gains momentum going into Florida with the two of them will be duking it out in the southern portion of the state. If she falters there, he picks up speed going into Feb 5 where he can match her in California, win Illinois and cut into her numbers in New York and Texas..

    •  indies indies indies (7+ / 0-)

      are why Obama will win NH and then the campaign becomes abpout electability, Obama's crossover appeal and Hillary's lack of it.

      put the money in the bag http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/rich222

      by nevadadem on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:43:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Indies (I used to be one) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        costello7

        ... respond well to candidates who can inspire them. Obama and Edwards have this ability. I'm not saying Clinton doesn't, but I know the other two do.

        Either we believe in false dichotomies or we don't.

        by droogie6655321 on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:12:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  true... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          droogie6655321

          though I believe indy women can find inspiration in Hillary easily enough.

          One other thing I believe indies are interested in is someone who can heal the bitter divide we've had since Mr. Monkey came to washington.

          Though Obama talks the talk (and is excessivly good at it), I've noticed Hillary is doing more walking in this regard. She actually has been doing this her whole time in the senate.

          •  Slight change of topic... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yoshimi, Lepanto, chicago minx

            ... but I don't see Hillary's message resonating any more with women simply because she is female any more than I see Obama's message catching on with black males because he is one.

            People are self-interested when it comes to voting, it's true, but they look for what the people are advocating when deciding who has their best interest in mind, not what the person looks like.

            For instance, I learned in a voting and elections class in college that white politicians are viewed by black voters to be more likely to advocate policies that would help black communities than black politicians and candidates are.

            Just because you look the part doesn't mean you'll actually deliver, and voters know it.

            Either we believe in false dichotomies or we don't.

            by droogie6655321 on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:24:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What you said is true, but (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              droogie6655321

              A lot of voters, especially low-info folks, like to vote for their own (or people they think are their own). That's why, for instance, the Maryland Dem Senate primary was such a nailbiter (yes I know there were other factors, but blacks turning out en masse for Mfume was one. Plus the initial worry over whether black GOPer Steele would score an upset). And why what happened in the Memphis House race last year annoyed so many (buncha black Dems split the black majority vote allowing the white Jewish Steve Cohen to score an upset, leading to a Ford running as an Independent and again splitting the black vote). The coming primary to fill the late Juanita Millender-McDonald's House seat will probably fall on racial lines too.

              Oh, and of course Southerners have long preferred to vote for other Southerners. Or at least for Not-Yankees

              And need I remind that George Bush (recovering alkie/dry drunk) is the guy that white-collar folks "wanna have a beer with".

              I'm not as educated as you, so I'm probably wrong on this. Flame away.

              Full Disclosure: I support A Democrat for President in 2008. (-4.50,-3.54)

              by SouthernFried on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:44:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ha ha (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SouthernFried

                I make no claim to an education, senor.

                I'm just making a point about how voters make their decisions about candidates. And you're right, those "undecided" types will base their vote on just about any silly, trivial thing.

                Either we believe in false dichotomies or we don't.

                by droogie6655321 on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:52:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Wish you were right but... (0+ / 0-)

              My sixty-something year old mother has decided she's backing Hilary because, "it's time for a woman to be in the white house."

              My mom's college educated, has taught for thirty years and is part of the 8% of americans who opposed Bush even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.  Clinton's gender is the only reason she's supporting a candidate who's at best ambivalent and at worst hostile toward progressive interests.

              The Devil crept into Heaven, God slept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on September 11 - IT

              by tomaxxamot on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:53:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  New Yorker New Yorker New Yorkers. (0+ / 0-)

        Shes practically got constituents living there.

        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

        by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:27:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obama also wins NH because of Iowa (0+ / 0-)

        ... where beating Hillary (and thus beating expectations) will give him the tactical advantage of perceived momentum and electability.

        "What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" - J. Madison

        by berith on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:03:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rick, BWasikIUgrad, Lepanto

      Look at the bump Kerry got after winning Iowa.  The next week Dean won in New Hampshire, but could not retake the momentum.  I agree with Kos' scenario, except that it will be Edwards who emerges as the consensus candidate.  

      Edwards is still leading in Iowa by a good margin in every poll that I have seen.  If he wins big in Iowa, and his momentum carries him to a close second in New Hampshire, I think he then picks up support in Nevada and South Carolina.

      Of course we have a much different primary scheme this time around, which could make a huge difference.  But unless Edwards loses a lot of ground in Iowa, I look for him to emerge as the front runner come Super Tuesday.

      •  Dean didn't win NH (5+ / 0-)

        Big flaw in your theory.

      •  but (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, berith, Pozzo

        generally "momentum" is only generated in Iowa on the heels of surprises.  If Edwards goes in ahead, then it won't be a surprise, and the real news will be made when, for example, Richardson leap-frogs one of the big three, or Hillary or Obama fizzles.

        Dean didn't win NH, btw.

        My candidate walks on water and can beat up Chuck Norris. Yours sucks ****.

        by cardinal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:10:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

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

          Edwards not only needs to win Iowa, he needs to win it big. There are plenty of cases where the candidate who "Won" in Iowa didn't get much MO and faired poorly in NH because they didn't win as big as anticipated. Like Mondale in 84 or Dole in 88 and 96. If Edwards wins, but only by a few points, I dont think this gives him the momentum he needs to reinvigorate his campaign.

      •  This is how I see it (0+ / 0-)

        Iowa
        Edwards has his grassroots organization intact (90% of his pricinct captains are back and he has county organizers in all 99 counties) in Iowa, leads in every poll taken (other than strange ARG polls), and is well liked by the Des Moines Register (remember, their endorsement will carry significance).  Obama will compete in the eastern cities, but won't do much of anything away from the river.  I think Hillary will have a hard sell getting above her base 20%.
        Prediction: Edwards 45%, Hillary 25%, Obama 20%, Others (Richardson primarily) 10%.

        Nevada
        So Edwards wins Iowa and takes momentum into Nevada. Caucuses are all turnout, and the Democratic party in Nevada is one organization: Culinary Union 226 of Las Vegas, UNITE-HERE's power base, the strongest local union in the country, 60,000 strong.  And UNITE-HERE are already (if unofficially for now) 100% behind Edwards (that’ll be true of the Change To Win unions at least).  Union households make up 25% of the electorate in Nevada, and will be a much larger portion of the Democratic caucus vote.  Edwards has developed deep ties with union leaders and workers over the past two years; he’s been very active in "Hotel Workers Rising" movement.  Edwards also made friends through his support of Nevada’s successful raising the minimum wage proposal and union stalwort David Bonior is JRE's campaign manager.  Edwards will get the lion share of union endorsements (though Hillary may be strong enough to get the NEA and maybe prevent a full AFL-CIO endorsement for Edwards).  If you take a look at the percentage of Hispanics who are registered to vote, it's really low, and if you look at Hispanics who vote in primaries, it's extremely low, thus Richardson bombs.
        Prediction: Edwards 45%, Hillary 25%, Richardson 15%, Obama 15%.

        New Hampshire
        This might be the place where Obama and Hillary do best, but NH did follow Iowa in 2004, and may jump on the Edwards-Iowa-Nevada bandwagon.
        Prediction: Edwards 35%, Hillary 35%, Obama 25%, Richardson 5%, Biden 3%, Dodd 1%.
        Richardson drops out.
        Obama has two three place showing is fading, SC is his last hope.
        Biden and Dodd drop out.

        South Carolina
        And then there's SC, the state Edwards already convincingly won in 2004 (45% of the vote against a guy already being called inevitable by Party leaders)!  Edwards still has the local-boy-done-good vote (he was born in South Carolina), will compete with Clinton and Obama for African-American vote, but he'll get the lion's share of the white vote, and still will have the momentum.
        Prediction: Edwards 40%, Obama 35%, Hillary 25%.
        Obama has no wins and drops out. Who does he endorse?

        Michigan
        As stated, Edwards will pick up endorsements in the fall of 2007 from most of the unions (with HRC getting a few).  Edwards has the trade issue and the populist economics.  This is where the race ends.
        Prediction: Edwards 50%, Hillary 30%, Obama 15% (some folks in Detroit will still vote for him), Kucinich 5%.

        Keep in mind that both Hillary and Obama have good reasons not to stick to a obviously losing campaign (they would have money, and that means power in the Senate where HRC could dominate the caucus and become Leader next and Obama could gear for a run at Illinois gov and be ready in 2012 or 2016 as the heir apparent).  Of course, they could also be looking at Party unity and a possible VP slot.

        Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

        by philgoblue on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:10:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama drops out after S.C.? Nuts. (8+ / 0-)

          Even if he improbably did as poorly as you predict up to that point, that's nuts.  He's got more money than anyone right now. He's good until monster-Tuesday.  THAT's the day we'll see shakeouts.

          You'll see the dwarves drop before Feb, but Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are in it until at least that day.

          The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

          by nightsweat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:19:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jxg, Yoshimi

            Obama's mountain of sacks with dollar signs on them indicate that he can and will stick around for at least a month of primaries, even if he's faring badly (which is a bold speculation in its own right).

            As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

            by Pegasus on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:31:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  See Phil Gramm. (0+ / 0-)

              ...

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:23:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Phil Gramm had $60M through two quarters?? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

                by Pegasus on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:25:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And there is the other example: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Justus

                  Presidential candidate

                  [edit] 1984 election
                  In 1984, Jackson became the second African American (after Shirley Chisholm) to mount a nationwide campaign for President of the United States, running as a Democrat.

                  In the primaries, Jackson, who had been written off by pundits as a fringe candidate with little chance at winning the nomination, surprised many when he took third place behind Senator Gary Hart and former Vice President Walter Mondale, who eventually won the nomination. Jackson garnered 3.5 million votes and won five primaries, including Michigan.

                  As he had gained 21% of the popular vote but only 8% of delegates, he afterwards complained that he had been handicapped by party rules. While Mondale (in the words of his aides) was determined to establish a precedent with his vice presidential candidate by picking a woman or visible minority, Jackson criticized the screening process as a "p.r. parade of personalities". He also mocked Mondale, saying that Hubert Humphrey was the "last significant politician out of the St. Paul–Minneapolis" area.[4]

                  [edit] 1988 election
                  Four years later, in 1988, Jackson once again offered himself as a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. This time, his successes in the past made him a more credible candidate, and he was both better financed and better organized. Although most people did not seem to believe that he had a serious chance at winning, Jackson once again exceeded expectations as he more than doubled his previous results, capturing 6.9 million votes and winning eleven primaries. Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democrat caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates.

                  Jackson's campaign, however, suffered a significant setback less than two weeks later when he was defeated handily in Wisconsin primary by Michael Dukakis. Jackson's showing among white voters in Wisconsin was significantly higher than in his 1984 run, but was also noticeably lower than pre-primary polling had indicated it would be. The discrepancy has been cited as an example of the so-called "Bradley effect".

                  On the heels of Jackson's narrow loss to Dukakis the day before in Colorado, Dukakis' comfortable win in Wisconsin terminated Jackson's momentum. The victory established Dukakis as the clear Democratic frontrunner, and he went on to claim the party's nomination.

                  No reason to suppose it will go a great deal differently.

                  My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                  by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:51:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Phil Gramm and his money. (0+ / 0-)

                    Republican Phil Gramm of Texas and Democrat Al Gore of Tennessee hold the high-water mark for first quarter receipts: $8.7 million for Gramm in 1995 and $8.9 million for Gore in 1995. Gramm dropped out before New Hampshire held that election's first primary

                    .

                    It's a pity for him that he bragged so much.

                    My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                    by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:59:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think Edwards will win NH. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            philgoblue, costello7

            He'll come close but not win it. Clinton will send out everything.

            Biut Edwards needs Iowa and Nevada to get going. By that time SC is anyone's.  Acouple of wins under his belt and Edwards can win it.

            My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

            by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:33:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  as I said (0+ / 0-)

            there are good reasons why Obama won't spend all that money to continue losing -- he can become an incredibly popular Senator and Democrat if he keeps and distributes the war chest and eyes a 2012 or 2016 run.

            Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

            by philgoblue on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:26:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  A bit off (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          badlands, dotster

          That scenario would hold except that at this point Obama and Hillary are splitting SC's black vote between them, leaving Edwards with next to nothing.
          He may have won it in '04, but that was due mainly to their being no other Southerners in the race save Clark, who didn't have the ground game.

          We are not enemies at all, but I just wanted to point that out. The dynamics in SC are completely different from last time.

          Full Disclosure: I support A Democrat for President in 2008. (-4.50,-3.54)

          by SouthernFried on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:00:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  cuckoo (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, NYFM

        Dean was destroyed in NH.

        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

        by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:29:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I Don't Know About Your (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alice in Florida

      particular horse race scenario. But I do agree if the 'states' polls are tight that this thing will not be over until Super Duper Tuesday.

      Iowa and New Hampshire are not going to have the impact that they have in the past. And that is the way it should be.

      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

      by talex on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:58:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ba ha (0+ / 0-)

      Nice try, but no one except a few insiders expects Edwards to win Iowa.

      It'll be huge news despite your not-so-clever expectations raising.

      Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

      by philgoblue on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:09:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  speaking of clever. . . (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, Yoshimi, berith

        surely you know that, come January, the press will inundate us with the expectations that Edwards will win Iowa.  They know the same insiders that we do, after all, and will be in frequent contact with them when appropriate.  Some careful downplaying of his chances could help diffuse that -- but my money is on "Edwards will win Iowa" being CW by election night.

        My candidate walks on water and can beat up Chuck Norris. Yours sucks ****.

        by cardinal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:13:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Doubtful (0+ / 0-)

          It'll stun America when the two "frontrunners" stumble out of the block.  Everything else is wishful thinking.

          Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

          by philgoblue on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:14:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  First of all, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            berith

            "wishful thinking" may describe some of the commenters -- but I'm an undecided political scientist, so my opinion is simple prognostication (does that mean it's worth more than anyone else's?  Of course not.  But the only thing I'm "wishing" for is a Dem victory).

            Again, it's all about surprises.  Your argument works to the extent that, if one or both frontrunners have a terrible showing in Iowa, or if Edwards blows them away, he'll gain positive momentum.  But if he wins by the Vegas line, then it will be reported as such.  I am sympathetic to your argument that most Americans won't be familiar with the insider wisdom.  But on the other hand, try to envision the coverage in the week leading up to the contest.  Every talking head will make a prediction.  And, wanting to be right, they'll go with the insider tidbit about Edwards' undeniable strength in Iowa.

            But we'll see. . .

            My candidate walks on water and can beat up Chuck Norris. Yours sucks ****.

            by cardinal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:19:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Im not so sure about that. (0+ / 0-)

            Everyone at this site is convinced Edwards will win Iowa.  I can picture that meme spreading to the MSM this fall.

            He better win big. :)

  •  I don't think Obama will (6+ / 0-)

    win the nomination, although you present an interesting scenario.  I think John Edwards will.  

    We still have six months or so until the first votes.  

    "We've got to save America from this President." John Edwards 4/3/07

    by TomP on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:39:26 AM PDT

  •  Also, the tiers were not as clearly established (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, Pozzo, Geekesque

    then as they are now.

    In the June poll, you have 8 candidates polling above 5%, and nobody above 21% [whereas now, there are four or maybe five candidates polling above 5% (one of whom isn't running yet)], and the rest below 5%.

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

    by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:39:31 AM PDT

  •  Hillary Should Be The Frontrunner (6+ / 0-)

    this early out in national polls.  Her name recognition is better than all her opponents and I would go further and say that her name recognition is as-good or better than any of the candidates in 2004.  Add to that her financial resources and her superior organizational structure (at least at the onset) and the big news would be if she did not hold a nice lead at this very early point in the race.

  •  I won't vote for her in the general (6+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    tomaxxamot, rick, NewJerz, Lepanto, elie, KansasLiberal
    Hidden by:
    Geekesque

    If she's our nominee in the general, she still isn't getting my vote.

    The absolute last thing our country needs is 28 straight years of a Clinton or a Bush.

    I'll be damned if we're going to voluntarily wrap ourselves in the mantle of monarchy.

    (If Hilary's name is on that ballot in November, I'm doing a write-in vote for Spider Jerusalem..!)

    •  Nader (13+ / 0-)

      You sound like Ralph--and the results could be both similar and disasterous!

      •  Nader IS the devil (0+ / 0-)

        That man is one of the few American politicians I loathe more than Bush. Nader is a true horror. A pox on me for the comparison! :)

        If Hilary is the nominee, I'll vote 3rd party or do a write-in for Gore or simply stay home.

        Yeah, I know, all bad things for the long-vision movement...but man, I just can't vote for somebody I don't at all believe in.

        •  she's not that bad (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bridge Master

          Iraq is a continuing gaffe for her, but on almost everything else, she's good to very good.  It's time for a woman, and the standard for her should not be higher than it's been for men.  She's so much better than Biden or Lieberman--and none of the rest are without blemishes.  No candidate agrees with all your positions--at least she'll get out of Iraq immediately--for no other reason than it is the politically expedient thing to do.

          If you vote against her--or stay away--you enable the evils to win again.  If you're ok with that, this is the wrong site for you.

          •  Wrong site? Whoops! My bad. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk, Justus

            Good points until that part, there. Maybe you want I should go play with my little footballs?

            The reason I can be so flippant with my vote is that I live in CA. Otherwise, I'd agree 100%: it's a sad fact in America right now that voting your conscience is more dangerous than ever.

            Still, personally, I'm not holding Hilary to a HIGHER standard....I'm holding her to a lower one!

            I want VERY BADLY to vote for a woman for president. And one of the few reasons I put in her "Pro" column is, quite plainly, her gender.

            But if I vote for her, I would be sacrificing a good many of my political principles. Do I do that? Do I sacrifice them on the alter of "NOT THE OTHER GUY!"

            As a side note, I've read every single front page post on Dkos for the last 3-4 years. I was a guest lurker since nearly its inception, long before I finally created an account. I check Dkos 6-8 times a day. That's not an exaggeration. I'm obsessed.

            Frankly, I think your attitude in regards that is unnerving. Who keeps assuming we'll vote for a Democrat? That's right: our no-spine, centrist-cause-it's-safe Dem leaders and frontrunners. Is that truly the right attitude? That I must vote Dem because they're NOT the GOP?

            Hey, I hate the GOP with more fire and passion than I have for anything or anyone else. And I am filled with rage.

            But I just don't think that enabling the party's attitude -- the attitude that they just have to be the lesser of two evils -- is healthy for our country. I think it reinforces a corrosive message. And I think that it's the REASON we keep having to vote for a candidate we just don't give a shit about.

            •  she's not that evil (0+ / 0-)

              Bloomberg might be joining the presidential sweeps--CA could ne in play.  Also, I want Pelosi demoted and would gladly support a third party candidate locally--but the Rs are so evil and arrogant that anyone but one of them is necessary.

    •  I don't like Dynastic Politics either but... (12+ / 0-)

      if Hillary's name is on the ballot I'll gladly vote for her.  The consequences of another 4 years of Republican control of the White House are enough to trump my reservations about Dynastic Politics.

      •  I think I agree.. (0+ / 0-)

        The only reason I can't totally agree is that the precident that that establishes really worries me.

        I'd be horrified to learn that, down the road, political parties have decided that the best nominees are simply those with a particular surname.

        Yes, the thought of another 4-8 years of a GOP administration chills to the bone: I don't know what I'd do (outside of 4-8 years of angry weeping).

        But our country stands for something that's fundamentally incompatible with dynastic rule, whether codified or defacto. And I cannot and will not help us go down that miserable road.

    •  I guess you prefer 220 years of rich white men (11+ / 0-)

      instead of 16 years of Clintons.

      Taking the tough votes on this issue - rather than just taking potshots from the outside - should be praised as important steps in helping to end this war."

      by Geekesque on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:49:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I badly, BADLY want a non-white, non-male Prez (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Justus, KansasLiberal

        But voting for the wrong one is still the wrong thing to do.

        I loved Obama at first. Now, I'm mildly repulsed by him. Why? Because I wanted SO badly to vote for a non-white President. But he's just not the right guy for the job.

        I'd be tickled giddily to death to vote for a female Dem in the election...if it was anybody but Clinton.

        I genuinely believe that she's 100% wrong for the country I love so much. To vote for her anyway would be  unpatriotic.

        •  Unpatriotic? I hope you're # 1 on the list for (3+ / 0-)

          brain transplants.

          Taking the tough votes on this issue - rather than just taking potshots from the outside - should be praised as important steps in helping to end this war."

          by Geekesque on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:43:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If I only had a brain transplant (0+ / 0-)

            At least, I think it'd be a good idea...but don't listen to me; my brain don't working good.

            And YES, unpatriotic: Is there anything more patriotic, when casting your vote, than to vote for who you truly believe in?

          •  Troll != insult..? (0+ / 0-)

            I'm sort of confused, here:

            Somehow you figure my original comment is worth a troll rating, but an unprovoked insult like this is totally cool..?

            Oh, hey, suddenly I remember why I've been in lurker mode for the past few years...

        •  he might be the only shot in your lifetime though (0+ / 0-)

          Now or never and whatnot. I'm more concerned about his potential for becoming paralysed by the big money boys like ADM and Boeing. He's got a great legal mind, good convictions but the powers that be could make his first term hell on earth.

          He needs to root his power in the union movement as well as the Afrcian American community if he wants to have any ability to resist the corporate looby.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:28:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I won't vote for her, either. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elie

      I've already decided who's getting my vote, and if he's not on the ballot I'm writing him in.

      ...although if Gore jumped into the race I might change my mind.

      My dream ticket in 2008? John Edwards-Kathleen Sebelius

      by KansasLiberal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:50:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You love Brownback so much that you think (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geekesque

        you'd like to share him with the rest of us? How about trying to defeat him on the state level in 2010 instead?

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

        by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:55:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not running. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure if he's to be believed, but he's said that he's not planning on running on 2010.

          And beating a Republic on the state level in Kansas is a near-impossibility.  You've got to have the right Democratic candidate and the Republic candidate has to be either in trouble or the voters have to be angry with the national Republic party.  That being said, I think that there's a decent chance of Pat Roberts doing down in '08...but we need the right candidate.  Jill Docking just accepted an appointment to the Kansas Board of Regents, so she won't be running.  Sebelius could do it, but I doubt that she'll run.

          (A note about Kansas politics...Kathleen Sebelius is the first Democrat in the states' history to win an open election for Governor (all other Dem Govs. beat unpopular incumbents).  That should show you how hostile this state is to Democrats.  Also, all of the major Democratic officeholders with the exception of Sebelius are former Republics.)

          My dream ticket in 2008? John Edwards-Kathleen Sebelius

          by KansasLiberal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:17:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, we'd be better off with 12 years of Bush+ (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      loudGizmo, feebog, gustynpip

      whatever schlub wins the GOP nomination...

      I think think a Bush/Guiliani reign of Fascism would be WAY better than Clinton/Bush/Clinton.

      --end snark

    •  I hope you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pozzo, Lobsters

      live in a solid safe blue state.

      The last thing we Dems need to be doing is participating in the same tactics the wingnuts are.

      •  Only reason I wouldn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jackieca

        Is exactly that. I'm in CA, so it doesn't particularly matter, thankfully. I certainly wouldn't fail to vote for the Dem if I was in even the bluest purple state.

        •  Unless Hollywood Fred (0+ / 0-)

          gets together with Hollywood Arnold and woos the Dems with promises of pure BS.

          I am in Cali to and I won't give the Republicans one inch. This is too important. Dems need to take a page out of the Repigs book and stay cohesive in 08, last time we started thinking like that, we ended up allowing Nader to take Gore out.

          No fuzzy math this time!:)

          •  Ahnold can't run. Even for VP. n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jackieca

            Unless that's not what you meant by "getting together".

            Full Disclosure: I support A Democrat for President in 2008. (-4.50,-3.54)

            by SouthernFried on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:07:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  True! But what about Kerry? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LanceBoyle

            All the Dems fell into lockstep for Kerry like they were falling into a black hole.

            I admit it: I jumped aboard! I was the staunchest "ABB" voter in '04.

            I would never, ever, EVER vote for a Republican. Ever, EVER. NEVER! (you get the point)

            But so long as we all keep voting for the least-crappy candidate, keep voting party line, and keep voting for candidates we're not happy with -- then we're just reinforcing the wrong message again. And you better believe that means they'll set us up the same choice next time.  

            •  The wing nuts (0+ / 0-)

              will put Hollywood/Lobbyist Fred into the nomination, I think. Hillary will clean his clock.

              American women have issues with Hillary?
              Uh ha right, wait untill American women get a look at photos of Freds child wifes fake boobies hanging out all over the place.

              The gross me out factor is huge!  

    •  dislike America and our children? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      naderhader, jackieca

      just kidding - give your vote to whoever you want, just know its consequences....

    •  Karl Rove thanks you. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      naderhader, jackieca
    •  Then don't bitch (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LakersFan

      when this nation ends up with another Neo-Con. Hillary is not the devil the Republipigs make her out to be, I think she and Bill Clinton are the ONLY people (running) that can straighten this mess that Bush and Cheney made out and get this nation on the right track.  

    •  Troll rated? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lepanto, elie, Norm DePlume, KansasLiberal

      Er...I know mine is not a popular opinion, but how is that troll-worthy exactly...?

    •  I respect your opinion, (0+ / 0-)

      and strongly disagree with it. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's your right.

      After rereading your comment, I will agree that it's not trollish, since you didn't say you were going to vote GOP (or Green or Libertarian).

      Full Disclosure: I support A Democrat for President in 2008. (-4.50,-3.54)

      by SouthernFried on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:04:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would NEVER vote non-Dem, but (0+ / 0-)

        I also don't want to live with a voting record that embarrasses me.

        I would be sacrificing so many of my beliefs and principles if I checked the Hilary box. (uh...that's NOT a euphamism, btw)

        I just can't do it again. I can't continue to be a part of the political mechanism that's proved fertile ground for spineless non-leaders who excell at exactly one thing: NOT being the other guy.

  •  convention (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dvd Avins

    So many primaries on the same day will result in no clear cut winner--and the nominee will be decided at the convention.  Now that's going to be exciting--and leaves room for a new person to get the nod--Gore or Clark.  Since they're all good, this will be fun!

  •  Beware the "Iowa Effect" (8+ / 0-)

    It's far too soon to call Hillary's lead insurmountable.  She and Rudy both need to beware of "The Iowa Effect":

    New polls just released by the Des Moines Register show John Edwards and Mitt Romney leading the Democratic and Republican Iowa caucus fields respectively. While Edwards (29%) holds a six-point lead over Barack Obama (23%) and national front-runner Hillary Clinton (21%), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney enjoys a surprising 13% over John McCain (18%) and overall GOP leader Rudy Giuliani (17%). All of which suggests that in 2008, Americans may once again witness the "Iowa Effect."

    In a nutshell, the Iowa Effect is the complete upending of the predicted presidential primary landscape by a candidate's unexpected performance in the nation's first caucus. Riding a wave of adoring press coverage by a media eager to hype the tale of the underdog, the perceived winner in Iowa sweeps through New Hampshire and subsequent primary states to take (or at least seriously challenge for) the party's nomination...

    For the full analysis, see:
    "The Iowa Effect."

    •  The Iowa Effect (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, naderhader, Lobsters

      Will be strong in the Republican race. In the Democratic race, whoever wins Iowa will become the new frontrunner. However, because of Hillary's great organization, she'll have the money and support to still win on Super Duper Tuesday even if she loses Iowa.

      If Hillary wins Iowa, then it's over.

    •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue, TomP

      Edwards has been paying attention to Iowa for 2 yrs. Nobody else has. He's built up an organization there, and NOT one that is made up of people from outside the state.

      People in Iowa know him. That will count for a lot.

    •  herd following (0+ / 0-)

      in 2004 after the IOWA caucus (s)elected Kerry, everyone got into the herd mentality and voted for Kerry in the primaries. It will be difficult to comeback from a defeat in the beginning. People want to vote for the winning candidate.
      And not being portrayed by the media as a raving lunatic helps to fight back after a loss in the Iowa caucus selection.

    •  The Iowa Effect - Different This Time (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, berith, keeplaughing

      In 2004, everyone was counting on Dean to win Iowa.  When in the last week or two things totally up-ended and Kerry won, that stunning victory catapulted him through the other states, where things were more fluid to begin with.

      In 2008, if everyone expects Edwards to win Iowa, but Hillary or Obama all the other main states, then if Edwards actually does win Iowa, it won't necessarily catapult him forward.  The reaction will be, "Yes, he won Iowa, but we expected that."  This is why whomever can come in a close 2nd will be watched so carefully.

      Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

      by dansac on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:03:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That isn't how it works. (0+ / 0-)

        He'll have come from behind in the national narrative.

        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

        by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:32:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The part of "The Iowa Effect" that everyone ignor (0+ / 0-)

      es...

      If Gore gets in the race, it could very likely end up:

      1. Edwards

      2/3. Gore/Obama

      1. Clinton

      A forth place finish in Iowa would be a HUGE blow nationally for Clinton.

  •  I like Obama's chances (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jackieca, berith, elie, dotster

    Edwards will probably win Iowa but the real race might be for second, a third place finish by Hillary in the first state reeks of being unelectable in a general, Nv although my home state probabaly won't mean much, it's New Hampsire where indies who aren't included much is primary polling but always show up which will give Obama the win, he will follow up in South Carolina and become inevitable.

    put the money in the bag http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/rich222

    by nevadadem on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:41:37 AM PDT

  •  Watch the media (8+ / 0-)

    It's in the media's best interest to destroy HRC during the runup to the general, not in the runup to the primary. They have to keep her in front until then, so that they can make the smooth transition from reaping profits from the "War on Terra" to reaping profits from the "War on Hillary."

  •  Hillary can't win (18+ / 0-)

    It's all over for Hillary. TPM reports that she picked "You and I" by Celine Dion as her official campaign song.

    I say there's no way anyone can get elected president with a Celine Dion song.

  •  I don't see Hillary crashing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, Ky DEM, Lobsters

    she has a lot of solid support. I agree however that she will have trouble growing support unless or until her competition implodes. Most folks are going to vote for the Democratic nominee... period.

    I am amongst those that thinks the state by state polls are much more relevent... though not absolute either. So...

    Who leads Iowa?

    Who leads Nevada?

    Who leads New Hampshire?

    Who leads South Carolina?

    Who has and will have the real momentum when the numbers actually count?

    "Parlimentary inquiry Mr. Speaker... does whining come out of my time?"

    by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:43:11 AM PDT

  •  It really all depends on strength of campaigns... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Justus

    ..and of course, anything stupid any of them might say or do before those earliest caucuses/primaries.

    Fate has a funny way of fooling us.

    Kerry was way down there...and look at where he wound up.

  •  Kos' Therory (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, jackieca, arnott, LakersFan, Justus

    That Clinton is winning on name recognition is funny. If one reads the press or even if they don't you know that she is leading on national and foreign policy 'experience' over Obama who virtually has none. And the polls on that 'experience' question show that.

    Then regarding Kerry in Iowa - a few days before the Iowa Caucuses he was leading in the Iowa polls! So there was not much of a surprise that he won. And of course you can't look at the national polls days before a primary. You have to look at the states polls by that time!

    "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

    by talex on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:44:44 AM PDT

  •  This is why Gore will wait until Labor Day (4+ / 0-)

    If he his going to answer the pleas that he is hearing EVERYWHERE he goes, I think he needs to do so by Labor Day. Even for him, it will take a little time to put a campaign operation together, and September is when normal people (not folks like us) start to pay attention. In the meantime, he can and should let the others continue to make fools of themselves (e.g., Barack's "Punjab" memo). It will simply increase the sense of a stature gap when he (I hope!!!) finally gets in.

    http://www.draftgore.com

    by Jim in Chicago on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:45:06 AM PDT

  •  The comparision to 04 is not well taken (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, redlief, Geekesque

    We have a much stronger field and we've started earlier too. The thing that shook up 03/04 early on was Deans' metoric rise and subsequent collapse. Hillary's rise has not been metoric, she's been on top for years and is very well known. Not too many really knew much about Dean in 03.

    •  I agree. 2004 is not a good analogy (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, naderhader, Pozzo, keeplaughing

      In 2004, the Democrats had essentially no chance for the White House. A reasonably popular President, riding the wave of patriotism in the wake of 9/11 and what were viewed at the time as successful military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      The smart money in the Democratic party stayed on the sidelines, allowing a motley crew of back-benchers to duke it out for the honor of getting creamed in the general election.

      I mean...John Kerry? I don't know of a Senator who had done less or established a smaller profile. Gephart had been trying for years and never gotten any traction in presidential politics. Howard Dean?

      No Gore. No Clinton. No candidates with serious stature.

      The problem with presuming sea-change in the nature of this year's race is that it ignores the obvious: Clinton and Obama are good candidates, extremely well-funded, and (as Carvelle says) able to change the temperature of the room just by walking in. These are bigger than life candidates. Clinton, with the advantage of experience, is running a incredible capable campaign. I don't see her making the big mistake that blows her out of the water.

      The netroots slams her for being "too centrist". But, guess what? That's where the electorate is. The mainstream of the Democratic party voters aren't stupid. They've seen Dukakis and Kerry get swiftboated as being soft, fuzzy-headed "lib'ralz". Clinton's perceived toughness, and its importance in the general election, is part of the mix here.

      •  Bush was (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        badlands, 0wn

        already a 4 year long cluster f^ck by 2004, with an economy in  a significantly worse condition than today, and Iraq very bad already and evidence that Bush lied was pouring in.

        I think katrina was the turning for people to start seeing past the MSM/RWNM spin and realizing just how bad Bush really was. That's the difference, from what I can see.

        In 2004, the race was winnable because Kerry led Bush from late Jan till June/July. He made two key mistakes: 1) not responding to SBVT in strongly and quickly 2) triangulating on the war, upon advice from Edwards.

        Truth, be it convenient or inconvenient, is all there is.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:58:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh-huh. (0+ / 0-)

          Bush was already a 4 year long cluster f^ck by 2004, with an economy in  a significantly worse condition than today, and Iraq very bad already and evidence that Bush lied was pouring in.

          Yeah but we were the only ones that knew that and nobody listened.

          Through a good chunk of '04, Bush's popularity was nearly twice what it is now.
          Then, as now, he had the media on his side too.

          Actually I think the Schaivo thing and Social Security was the turning point.

          I will agree that the response to the Swiftboating was Kerry's biggest blunder. But also remember that politicians are people too, and if they make mistakes, they can learn from them and change their ways. One can hope.

          Full Disclosure: I support A Democrat for President in 2008. (-4.50,-3.54)

          by SouthernFried on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:27:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Good lord. (0+ / 0-)

          2004 was a write off. When 9/11 happened I gulped and thought..."this is a war on liberals"  And you could see Rove practically breaking out the champagne.

          It's amazing that Kerry got as close as he did.

          Hillary would have run without the spectre of 9/11 and would have won comfortably on 2004. Gore may have even returned.  But we had a bout of war fever.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:16:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you need to look closer than that (0+ / 0-)

            From pollingreport.com, I am picking some numbers near the top. Trends seen here are found in many other polls.

            Bush's reelect numbers in 2004
            
            		Reelect New
            
            		%	%	%			 
            10/8-10/04	46	49	5			 
            10/5-7/04	45	50	5			 
            10/4-6/04	44	50	6			 
            							 
            10/1-3/04	46	49	5			 
            9/17-19/04	47	50	3			 
            9/8-9/04	46	49	6			 
            8/30 - 9/2/04	46	48	6			 
            8/12-14/04	43	53	4			 
            7/26-29/04	42	51	7			 
            7/6-7/04	43	53	4			 
            6/2-5/04	43	53	5			 
            5/10-13/04	42	53	6			 
            4/15-17/04	43	51	6			 
            4/1-4/04	44	51	5			 
            3/17-19/04	45	51	4			 
            1/15-18/04	41	48	10
            
            Bush-Kerry Numbers (ARG Polls)
            
            		Bush	Kerry
            Among likely voters:
            10/2-4/04	46	47	7 
            8/30 - 9/1/04	48	47	5 
            
            Among registered voters:
            10/2-4/04	45	48	7 
            8/30 - 9/1/04	46	48	6 
            7/30 - 8/1/04	46	49	5 
            7/1-3/04	45	49	6 
            6/1-3/04	46	48	6 
            5/3-6/04	44	47	9 
            4/6-9/04	44	50	6 
            3/9-11/04	43	50	7 
            2/04		46	48	6 
            1/04		46	47	7 
            

            Kerry did get a narrow but clear edge (in reelect numbers and somewhat less in matchup #s) to start the race from this set of numbers. He had a 3-5 point edge in several other poll in Jan-June timeframe.

            Truth, be it convenient or inconvenient, is all there is.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:57:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I got excited enough... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jxg, NeuvoLiberal

              ..on election night after the pundits declared it for Kerry, and saw Luntz' ashen face on Newsnight, to think for few hours that Kerry might win.  

              Kerry on all the Debates, he won all the serious policy arguments, for me at least, and then he rat bastard public voted Bush back into office.  Polling means nothing against that depressing reality.

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:04:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Kerry wasn't as bad a candidate (0+ / 0-)

                as people make him out to be, except for the two blunders he made. He also did benefit from heavy ABB drive in both money and groud support.

                But, another key mistake he made was to narrow the states contested. Gore+1 state was a bad strategy because it allowed little margin for error. Gore+10 would have been a better thing to go after, especially because he did have a $300mn war  chest.

                I'd give Kerry a B on effort, a C- on strategy, an A on debates, D- on rapid/media response, B on convention, B+ or A- on GOTV (there was heavy external help on this), a B- on message (this is low because of his war triangulation).

                He should have attacked Bush regularly on: 1) deficits 2) falling dollar
                (i sent the campaign many emails, material etc, on this, but not a peep in the debates on these).

                Truth, be it convenient or inconvenient, is all there is.

                by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:12:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Are you serious? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RallyPoint, Justus, costello7

        The democrats had no shot in 2004? 2004 was the first time in history that a sitting president with an approval rating under 50% won re-election. If we democrats hadn't been stupid enough to nominate someone who does not resemble a real person then a democrat would be president right now. John Edwards or Howard Dean would have won that election and put several states that were not in play into play.

        Same thing with Clinton. The presidency is the democrats' to lose, and Clinton, right or wrong, does not appeal to people in those so-called red states where 10% more people consider themselves democrats than republicans.

        The problem with Clinton isn't that she's too centrist. It's that she could be as right wing as she wanted to be and people would still view her as the world's biggest liberal. Most voters don't let facts get in the way of the narrative they've come to except. And thus any centrism she shows would be construed as pandering to get votes. So now people will see her as a liberal and a phony. I don't think that's a fair assessment, but that's what the public will think because the public thinks what it's told to think.

        •  Yes, I'm serious (0+ / 0-)

          It's nearly impossible to beat a sitting President while the country is at war.

          The timing was on Bush's side. The election took place soon enough after the "wildly successful" invasion of Iraq and before the [....] really hit the fan. 9/11 was still very fresh in the nation's pscyhe as well.

          Add in the fact that John Kerry was an utterly abysmal candidate. No charisma. Horrible political instincts.

          You have to look at it from the perspective of middle-of-the-road voters, not through the idealistic glasses of the netroots progressive.

          National security (which means terrorism these days) is the litmus test any presidential candidate must pass to be electable.

          •  That's just wrong (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Justus

            Bush was under 50% in the favorability polls at the time of the election. If everyone thought the invasion was so successful at that point in time, he would have still been at 70%, wouldn't he.

            More importantly, national security is most defintely NOT any sort of litmus test. If it were, then Tester would not be the senator from Montana after declaring he wanted to repeal the patriot act.

            There is one litmus test. And it has nothing to do with the issues. It's this: Is the person likeable?

            Most voters have no idea where candidates stand on the issues. They don't know what "liberal" means but they know they don't like liberals. They don't know what "conservative" means but they feel good about conservatives, especially if they're "compassionate".

            The people who don't know about the issues (which is most voters, especially in presidential elections) vote based on who is the more likeable candidate. They want someone who has firm convictions and forcefully states his/her case (It almost doesn't matter what those convictions are). They want someone who is genuine.

            •  He won because people still prfered his policies. (0+ / 0-)

              Now the country is fully awake.

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:18:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure. That explains the sub-50% approval rating. (0+ / 0-)
                •  There was an election. (0+ / 0-)

                  That actually counts more than an opinion poll.

                  My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                  by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:30:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ouch! My head just exploded! (0+ / 0-)

                    So your argument is that no democrat could have won the election because the public liked Bush's POLICY better, as proven by the fact that Bush won the election? The circular logic is making me dizzy.

                    Look, you're still pushing a hypothesis based on a completely faulty assumption, which is that people vote based solely on policy alternatives. That assumption is laughably false.

                    I wish people voted based on policy, because then we would have 80 democratic senators.

                    My point remains intact: No sitting president had EVER in the long history of this country won re-election under any circumstances who had an approval rating under 50%. The people did NOT like Bush's policy or his approval rating would have been above 50%. It took a special kind of ineffective democratic candidate completely devoid of appeal to lose the 2004 election, despite the fact that the people wanted change, and Bush was lucky to get one in Kerry.

                    Ugh, why do I bother?

                    •  He didn't win did he? (0+ / 0-)

                      The margin in the popular vote was something like 3,000,000+.

                      Hey I wished it was different. I would love it if the Democrats had adopted Universal Healthcare back in 1996 when Clinton was a goddamn shoe in and we got to watch Dole thrash around like a moron.

                      My point remains intact: No sitting president had EVER in the long history of this country won re-election under any circumstances who had an approval rating under 50%. The people did NOT like Bush's policy or his approval rating would have been above 50%. It took a special kind of ineffective democratic candidate completely devoid of appeal to lose the 2004 election, despite the fact that the people wanted change, and Bush was lucky to get one in Kerry

                      Except this time it did happen so your point is not intact. Events have a habit of proving ideas like your's wrong. Kerry came very close to a win despite a hostile media, a hostile church, a hostile DC establishment, and a President who was sitting on an ongoing WAR. No President seeking election during a war has ever lost either. I can't spend much time retreading the recent past, it looks like a lost cause.

                      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                      by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:52:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                        The margin in the popular vote was something like 3,000,000+.

                        And yet it seems to me that if 100,000 people in Ohio had voted differently, Kerry would be president. But I digress.

                        Except this time it did happen so your point is not intact

                        If my point had been that Kerry must have won the election because Bush's approval was under 50% this statement might make sense. But that obviously wasn't my point.

                        My point was that Bush did not win the election because people preferred his policies (as you had suggested). He won largely because his opponent was a doofus in the eyes of a large swath of voters.

                        Then your counterargument was that people must have preferred Bush's policies because he won the election. That is not backed up by the facts. If people liked his policies then Bush's approval rating would have been higher. Given that his approval rating was not higher then we can conclude that Bush's policies were NOT what won him the election. Something else (notably, the aforementioned Kerry doofus factor) won him the election.

                        •  Yeah but that would have... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...gone against the popular trend.  100,000 flipped votes is not an easy thing to accomplish.

                          1,000, 2,000, maybe 3,000 like in Florida--but 51,000 in Ohio? That figure represented in part the national vote.

                          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                          by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:33:25 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Doofus? (0+ / 0-)

                          See are you even a Democrat?  Kerry is a Doofus...wow that is why he lost he was a Doofus. Pet theories about 2004 fly in the face of the fact that Bush got more votes that Kerry--more people agreed with Bush than they did with Kerry.

                          It's that simple.

                          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                          by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:35:16 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Why do you vote for a candidate? (0+ / 0-)

                          I know I vote for a candidate because I generally agree with their policies.

                          Ask other people why they vote they way they vote. It's generally because they agree with the candidate or the party.

                          Then your counterargument was that people must have preferred Bush's policies because he won the election. That is not backed up by the facts

                          Fact is you vote for the candidate you mostly agree with. That's what voters do.

                          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                          by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:38:09 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  No shot in my opinion. (0+ / 0-)

          war fever had not broken. We were called cut and run--flip flop etc. The nation was hysterical.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:05:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  What you say about Kerry is just not true. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        He is a senator of IMMENSE accomplishment:

        http://kerry.senate.gov/...

        His investigations of BCCI, Iran/Contra, and CIAdrugrunning alone put him way ahead of the other members in the Senate!

        POW/MIA and normalization of relations with Vietnam.  

        More from the site:

        Fought Global Terrorism. John Kerry introduced critical legislation for cracking down on international laundering of terrorist funds. He was one of the key architects of anti-money-laundering provisions in the Patriot Act designed to deny financing for terrorists, and he has consistently used these provisions to press the Bush administration to crack down on terrorist financing activities by Syria and Saudi Arabia. He introduced a bill to ban arms exports to countries that provide support for acts of international terrorism, a proposal that was incorporated into the final 1990 State Department Authorization Bill.

        Yeah, fighting terrorism when it wasn't fashionable, but was actually becoming a gathering threat.

        Wrote Pre-Cursor Bill to S-CHIP, Providing Coverage for up to 5 Million Children. John Kerry's 1996 bill, the Healthy Children, Family Assistance Health Insurance Program, was the precursor to the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) that became law in 1997. S-CHIP provides funding to cover 5 million children.

        Not on factcheck.org because what he wrote got attached somewhere else and was passed without his name on it.

        Improved Coverage and Care for America's Veterans.

        John Kerry has been a tireless champion of mandatory funding for veterans' health care. He fought vigorously for full funding of Veterans Administration (VA) health care and opposed the Bush administration's exclusion of Priority 8 veterans and its elimination of VA outreach efforts. He sought improved prescription drug benefits and authored legislation in 2003 to let veterans fill prescriptions written by non-VA doctors through the VA pharmacy.

        He is a legendary supporter of veterans' care.  Related:

        Fought to Help Victims of Agent Orange. Beginning more than 15 years ago, John Kerry introduced legislation to assist veterans in receiving medical compensation after being exposed to the toxic chemical Agent Orange. John Kerry even testified before Congress to force the government to care for Vietnam veterans. John Kerry's bill, the Comprehensive Agent Orange Scientific Evidence Review Act, sought to require that the Veterans Administration(VA) look into the "health effects of exposure" to Agent Orange. John Kerry also voted to pass the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and the Veterans' Agent Orange Exposure and Vietnam Service Benefits Act of 1989.

        He worked long and hard on this one.

        Improved Post-Natal Care. John Kerry co-sponsored an amendment that successfully required health care plans to provide coverage for a minimum hospital stay for a mother and child following the birth of the child.

        Um, the above is revolutionary and changed lives.  I got a longer stay in the hospital than my sister following the birth of my children because of this.

        And, finally, he's just one of the best on the environment:

        Fought to Protect America's Environment. John Kerry has been described by the League of Conservation Voters as an "environmental champion." He introduced legislation to improve standards for clean air and establish a fund to finance emissions reductions. He secured millions of dollars in funding to clean America's waterways, harbors, and drinking water, worked to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act, and introduced legislation in 1996 to ensure "protection in the quality of our water." He sponsored legislation that extended and strengthened laws protecting marine mammals from commercial fishing. He helped protect America's National Parks and National Forests from pollution, excessive logging, and overdevelopment while ensuring that endangered species are preserved for all Americans to experience. He has opposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling for over a decade, ensuring that future generations can experience this national treasure. He strongly advocated for U.S. participation in the Kyoto accords and other international environmental initiatives, and personally participated in many major world environmental summits, including conferences at Rio di Janiero, Kyoto and the Hague.

        I'm not here to talk about the 2004 campaign, but Senator Kerry.  DO NOT BUY the right wing lie that he did "nothing in the Senate".  He's done more than most, and just because his name doesn't appear on a bill when it's finally passed, that doesn't mean he didn't write it or push for it, that without him it probably never would have happened.

  •  Clinton is not Lieberman (7+ / 0-)

    Otherwise you might be right.

  •  Sharpton's Numbers included, But Kucinich Not (0+ / 0-)

    OK, so Kucinich was never ahead of Sharpton in the polls. (check the links provided in the diary).  But his numbers were there, running at 2%.  And since the whole point of the argument is that the national opinion polls at this point are not predictive, how does it help to draw the line between Sharpton and Kucinich.

    And I write this not as an advocate for nominating Kucinich.

    And, please, don't bend to anyone's will.  It is up to us, don't let the MSM decide the nomination.

  •  As an Edwards supporter (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, KansasLiberal

    this is the one thing giving me hope.

    •  if edwards wins iowa (0+ / 0-)

      (a must by the way);it's a whole new ball game

      •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, berith

        People expect Edwards to win Iowa. If he wins then it's not a huge bounce for him unless it's like a 20-point victory and Obama comes in second. Or, if he loses his lead in the polls to Hillary but winds up winning anyway.

        That's what upended the 2004 dynamic. Almost nobody expected Kerry to win, and even fewer expected JRE to take second (he was third or worse in the polls as I recall).

        I will say, we are not enemies.

        Full Disclosure: I support A Democrat for President in 2008. (-4.50,-3.54)

        by SouthernFried on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:34:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kerry was the chosen one... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RevJoe, Justus

          ...in 2002. He was pretty much the front runner for a while Vanity Fair did a big cover...then Dean caught fire as the war dragged on.  Dean sadly, brought in too many outsiders to Iowa and was ambushed by Lieberman over the capture of Saddam.

          "this doesn't make us any safer."

          He was correct but the media started killing him right there.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:42:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RevJoe, Justus

            Kerry was the Chosen One very early on, but not later. As this diary points out, Kerry's support cratered and the money people went elsewhere. But we are not the GOP. Our earliest frontrunners don't always win the nom. Lieberman took that torch pretty early on, then Gephardt, then Dean.

            I'll also concede that bringing in outsiders to Iowa was not a smart move, and only served to show how deep his support there wasn't. And he may have been right all along, but the media never liked him, and didn't much care for Kerry either.

            Lieberman is scum, a cancer on the Democratic party. He may not technically be one of us, but like a malignant tumour, we must wait until he can be properly excised (removed) five years from now.

            I don't remember who you've said you support, but we're still not enemies.

            Full Disclosure: I support A Democrat for President in 2008. (-4.50,-3.54)

            by SouthernFried on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:55:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Who answers pollsters, anyway? (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, mmacdDE, Lepanto, TomP, MrBoomer, dotster

    I mean, really.  Who do the pollsters get these numbers from?  Because ever since the advent of Caller ID just about everyone that I know doesn't answer a call unless they recognize the phone number.  

    My dream ticket in 2008? John Edwards-Kathleen Sebelius

    by KansasLiberal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:47:02 AM PDT

  •  Whew!!!!! We dodged a bullet in 04. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque, elie

    Will we be so lucky in this election cycle?  From your mouth to the gods' ears, Markos.

    The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all - JFK- 5/18/63-Vanderbilt Univ.

    by oibme on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:47:02 AM PDT

  •  POLLS=MONEY (0+ / 0-)

    her gravy train will keep rolling as long as her numbers remain high

  •  This isn't '04. In case you haven't (7+ / 0-)

    noticed alot more attention is being paid to the '08 election than was at this time in the '04 election.  It seems to me, primary voters know the candidates alot more than they did in '04.  I think Obama should have been closer to Hillary by now in order for your theory to hold.

    I've been decidedly underwhelmed by the Obama campaign.  I expected to be an Obama supporter, but I'm not sure I'm buying what he's selling.  Please, Obama supporters, don't jump down my throat here, but I expected Obama to offer a more progressive vision than he has so far, which for me would have been a trade-off for his relative inexperience.  And, partisanship really isn't my hang up, so his focus on bipartisanship doesn't do anything for me.  It's kind of a snoozer.

  •  My Al Gore theory is (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dss, Justus, MrBoomer, KansasLiberal

    that things hold roughly the way they are with 3 top tier Democrats (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) unable to pull away from each other and a couple 2nd tier Democrats (Richardson, Dodd) pulling a few percent each hoping to be the darkhorse well into the fall.

    Gore continues to do what he is doing, keeping his name on front pages, doing good work, keeping folks like me excited and hopeful, and then announces in the fall.

    At that time he takes 5-10 percent equally from each of the current candidates as well as 10-20 percent of the undecided/uncommitteds and immediately vaults to the lead in polls prior to the front-loaded rush of actual primaries.

    Gore then strings together several wins and second place finishes that establish him as the candidate going into super-duper-mega-national primary day on Feb. 5.

    And it's all over.

    "Parlimentary inquiry Mr. Speaker... does whining come out of my time?"

    by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:49:25 AM PDT

  •  Gephardt Was A Strong Second In The First Poll (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Progressive Moderate

    In June 2003. At Labor Day, he was leading. 4 months later, he was last. Check Please! If Al don't get in, I don't think Hil can be caught.

  •  No room to grow? (8+ / 0-)

    Since she has no room to grow (her negatives are huge), she has but one way to go -- down.

    Um. Suppose she overcomes the negatives as people get to know her? That's what happened to me. I heard all about how awful she was, but I'd never so much as seen her on TV. Then someone put up a video clip that was supposed to be the absolute proof that this woman was daft or something. I watched it. She was great.

    I still have reservations about some of her policy statements and backers, but I think that you are just kidding yourself if you think that Hillary Clinton can't convert her negatives into positives. They are mainly based on ignorance or doctrinaire motives.

    The doctrinaire will never give up their prejudices, but I tend to believe that most of them are on the Republican side. They won't vote for any Democrat. They are very vocal about their hate for Hillary because she terrifies them, and with very good reason.

    Democrats can be educated, however. She has name recognition, but I don't get the feeling that all that many Democrats who have negative opinions of her know much about her. You presume, perhaps, that when they do, they will dislike her. Is that wishful thinking?

    newsroom-l.net News and issues for journalists.

    by Jules Siegel on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:52:07 AM PDT

    •  I don't think people will hate her (0+ / 0-)

      nor do I think she can't overcome some of her perceived negatives.

      But there's one negative she CAN'T overcome - she's a Clinton. I think one thing people will be thinking, even if they don't articulate it, is they don't want more of the same, and she's more of the same. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton - what is this? There's NOBODY in any other family who's qualified to be president?

      And that's part of what's going to keep her from the nomination.

      I don't think she'd be a bad president, and I would certainly like to see a woman. Maybe if it had been somebody other than Bush in office now, it wouldn't matter.

      But I think it will. Not consciously. But it WILL be there.

      Just like I think that part of the reason Bill won in 92 was Dole was ANOTHER WWII vet. And the boomers were thinking - when is it OUR turn? I am NOT voting for my father AGAIN. Even if I have to vote for a draft-dodging womanizer (RW talking points, but they were out there), I will NOT vote for another old man...

      •  I Disagree. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LakersFan

        Despite what the media says, people liked Clinton. They still do. The Clinton name is only poison on the lunatic fringe. If the dynasty thing mattered at all, Bush II would not have been elected.

        I imagine that more would associate a Clinton on the ballot with a "return to good times" than with a "dynasty=evil" thought.

        And, Bob Dole didn't run in 92, he ran in 96, after voters already knew Bill for four years, and liked him. Bush I lost in 92 because (among other things) the economy sucked and people didn't like him.

        Full Disclosure: I support A Democrat for President in 2008. (-4.50,-3.54)

        by SouthernFried on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:41:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No point on supposing (0+ / 0-)

      She cannot over come her negatives.  People's opinions about her have been set in concrete during the Clinton administartion and that concrete has cured long ago.  Some people love her and will continue to do so unless she make a huge blunder, other people hate her and their opinions will not change not matter what she does or says.

      "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

      by Quanta on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:11:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  P.S. (0+ / 0-)

        People getting educated about her will only hurt her.  Her Iraq policy is only marginally better than Bush's.  It has all the possible downsides of Edward's and Obama's plans which are that the evacuation of US forces causes sever deterioration in the stability of Iraq, since the number of forces she'd keep there could do basically nothing to stabalize the country.  I don't think this would happen since I don't see the US presence there now as doing much to cause stablity but it is possible a withdraw could make things more violent.

        Further, her plan also has the downside of still keeping US forces in Iraq.  They won't be able to do much good for the country, but they'll still be there trying and likely dying.  I think it is only her disinformation campaign to claim she is the same as the others that keeps here in the lead.  If people learn about her Iraq plan, they might not like her as much.

        "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

        by Quanta on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:18:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  P.S. (0+ / 0-)

        People getting educated about her will only hurt her.  Her Iraq policy is only marginally better than Bush's.  It has all the possible downsides of Edward's and Obama's plans which are that the evacuation of US forces causes sever deterioration in the stability of Iraq, since the number of forces she'd keep there could do basically nothing to stabalize the country.  I don't think this would happen since I don't see the US presence there now as doing much to cause stablity but it is possible a withdraw could make things more violent.

        Further, her plan also has the downside of still keeping US forces in Iraq.  They won't be able to do much good for the country, but they'll still be there trying and likely dying.  I think it is only her disinformation campaign to claim she is the same as the others that keeps here in the lead.  If people learn about her Iraq plan, they might not like her as much.

        "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

        by Quanta on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:18:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I honestly don't think she has a chance (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, Lepanto, KansasLiberal

    Her negatives are simply too great. When the real race begins, she will be viewed as the old guard by an electorate ready for change.

    "Tout le monde wang chung ce soir"

    by mrgrandefromage on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:52:47 AM PDT

  •  I Hope You're Right (0+ / 0-)

    If Hillary gets the nomination the right will regroup and we'll lose.

     

    She is the biggest lightening rod the right has.  At this juncture the Republics are in total meltdown chaos ... ONLY Hillary could bring them together and get them out to vote ... ONLY Hillary.

    "Success is not no violence." - GWB - 5/2/2007

    by Kdoug on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:53:37 AM PDT

  •  My operating theory on how Edwards wins. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KansasLiberal

    Hillary maintains a lead in the polls. Obama supporters realize their man is not going to catch her. But they want to see a liberal Democrat get the nomination. They face reality and move their support behind Edwards, who, while trailing has continued to pick up better numbers as time goes on.

    The joined forces of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party take down the DLC.

    "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

    by aggressiveprogressive on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:53:50 AM PDT

  •  Hillary is our safety school (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naderhader, jackieca, Geekesque

    We know she is a solid choice but her personality put us off. We have higher hopes for Obama there could be unpleasant surprises about him we don't expect from Hillary. She has a high floor and a low ceiling. Obama has a low floor and a high ceiling. If he can raise his floor to hers, he will win.

  •  I'm starting to gravitate towards Edwards (6+ / 0-)

    His prescient message from his first campaign resonates with me.

    His wife pushing his candidacy while being sick also resonates: i admire her belief in him: it says to me she is sacrificing their time together because she believes in his ability to start America healing and restoring itself

    He is consistent and persistent.

    He is growing on me.

    So I think he's going to end up overtaking Hillary and Obama.

    anyway, that's how i see it...

    "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

    by pfiore8 on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:53:59 AM PDT

  •  I'm No Fan of Hillary, but... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jackieca, Geekesque

    ...this video is pretty funny.

    Check out the guy at the counter...

  •  Best thing the Clintons have ever done (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, Geekesque, Shoes4Industry

    Check out the Hillary campaign's spoof of the Sopranos finale to announce her new campaign theme song...It's too bad that only campaign supporters are really the main target for this, though some of the articles about it should help:

    Check it out!

    http://www.breitbart.tv/...

  •  I don't see it (6+ / 0-)

    I don't see it. I met with Dem group last night and two themes kept reverberating:

    • She knows policy and did well in the debates.
    • Obama seems inspirational but lacks experience.

    The Clinton's are too smart to crash and burn like that.

    I think that analysis is more wishful thinking than a real probability.

    Catch NY politics raw and uncensored at GregNYC at The CITY.

    by GregNYC on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:54:42 AM PDT

  •  And the basis for this prophecy is what, exactly? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, naderhader, LakersFan

    Since she has no room to grow (her negatives are huge), she has but one way to go -- down.

    Maybe you heard it at the carwash or from the monkeys flying out of your butt? What utter nonsense- one misstep from Obama or Edwards and she will have plenty of room to grow.  Nobody outside the tubes really knows very much about her as a presidential candidate yet- they haven't really looked past her first lady image or the "carpetbagger" label she got hung with when she became a senator. A slick campaign staff can capitalize on opportunities to let that image form indirectly, from the mistakes of others. Says Ma and Pa Voter after a big gaffe from one of the other frontrunners- "Well, at least you don't catch Hillary doing shit like...."

    There's a whole lot of packaging that comes with this candidate, but is there substance? Too early to tell. Does she have experienced senate and campaign staff? Oh, yeah. Will we ever see the real Hillary? Probably not- if they can help it. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if that were to happen- this isn't a "down home" kind of candidacy.

    I wouldn't let your lack of regard for her coterie of advisors blind you to the fact that these folks earn a good wage doing this kind of stuff. They're not all stooges of the beltway party elite- some of them actually know how to get campaign tasks done.

    Oh, and let me not forget to state my position on the primary:

    DEMOCRAT FOR PRESIDENT- 2008!

    "Our attitude was- the revolution can't start until we find our hair gel." Joe Strummer

    by histopresto on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:55:38 AM PDT

  •  The early desperation of this post (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naderhader, jackieca, LakersFan

    ...is pretty much proof of HRC's growth as a candidate, and her strength. This post is one of the best arguments yet that Senator Clinton is becoming inevitable...

  •  Oh, knock off the Lieberman comparison (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dansac, jxg, naderhader, Pozzo, Pegasus

    Four years ago, we had just finished Iraq major combat operations, and no one was paying the least bit of attention to the campaign.  This cycle has been quite different (see Pew's documentation of the phenomenal amount of press coverage the election has received).

    I'm not saying that anything is set in stone.  But the "Joe-mentum was ahead" argument is glib, simplistic, and pretty much irrelevant.  We're probably closer to the late summer/early fall period in 2003 when Dean was surging (so yeah, things can still change).

    My candidate walks on water and can beat up Chuck Norris. Yours sucks ****.

    by cardinal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:56:26 AM PDT

  •  how Obama wins - (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dansac, Yoshimi, Pegasus

    He and Clinton stick around through Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina.  It doesn't matter how they do as long as they aren't blown out.

    Edwards does well in one or two or three. People start looking at him.

    Monster-truck Tuesday comes in February and Edwards wins one-three states with Clinton and Obama taking the rest, Clinton taking more, but not enough to knock out Obama.

    Edwards starts seeing he won't have the numbers to make it to the convention and get the nod. Obama cuts a deal with him for policy positions and either the VP-ship or a cabinet post and Edwards drops out endorsing Obama.

    Obama squeaks by Clinton at the convention with the help of Edwards delegates.

    How does Clinton win?  She blows out Obama and Edwards on Monster Truck Tuesday.  It's over then.

    How does Edwards win? I just don't see how he can. I think it would require a scandal involving midgets, goats, and bundles of twenties in a freezer to knock out the front-runners.

    How does anyone else in the field win the nomination?  They find a magic lamp. That's it.

    How does Gore win, if he decides he wants to play? He announces his candidacy.

    The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

    by nightsweat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:56:35 AM PDT

  •  Thanks Kos (0+ / 0-)

    for the perspective.....We have to love our respective candidates, raise money if we can,
    and wait for the vast majority of likely democratic voters , who are not paying attention like we are, to get in the game.
         It's a much longer campaign this time, and there is no incumbent, but these are not reasons to totally throw out the lessons of history.
       

  •  I dunno, kos, it goes both ways -- (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naderhader, LakersFan, masslib
    There's a tendency for partisans to gradually abandon the candidates who aren't going to win, and to coalesce around the top 2 or 3.  

    I am not so sure that Hillary has "nowhere to go but down."  She may well gain a few more points as the field narrows, particularly if Obama makes a major gaffe or two due to inexperience (which he well might).  Hillary's lead at this point is stronger than Lieberman's was in June 2003.

    Disclaimer:  I like Hillary, I like them all, but I want Al Gore.  And I think Obama is better suited for VP at this point in his career.  

  •  You are missing one huge issue: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, LakersFan

    The most popular politician on the planet, Bill Clinton.

    He won his war, he balanced the budget, he made this country very popular in the world and he will be Hillary's top advisor.

    I think a Clinton/Obama ticket is a winner. After 8 years more of Clinton, Obama will have the experience to take over.

    •  As I mentioned before (0+ / 0-)

      but nobody commented, what if Hill promised Bill as her VP nominee? Boy would that have an impact on things ... just speculating, because I can.

      "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush

      by RevJoe on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:22:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia

    If Kos candidate had a national lead would we even have this diary...of course not.

  •  To compare the Clinton name w. Lieberman (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, Geekesque

    is silly.

    I was amazed how few Dem voters could name candidates in the months leading up to the 2004 election. Not even "Lieberman" who was Gore's running mate in 2000. Anyone who watched those panel discussions w. Dem voters (can't remember the Dem polling guy who held them right now) on CSpan will agree. Most people didn't have a clue.

    They all knew "Bush." I doubt they forgot "Clinton" already in 2007.

  •  Hillary is running GWB's 2000 campaign (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jackieca, Pozzo

    I don't think many on our side realize that Hillary is running W's 2000 campaign: she is running on the idea that her victory is inevitable, and using that sense of inevitability to steamroll her way to the finish line.

    She has used a huge lead in dollars and name recognition to force more and more donors and endorsers onto her bandwagon. Her lead is, as the Emperor in Star Wars said of the Death Star, "fully operational."  In other words, there's no stopping her.  The rest of the field is engaging in a kind of audition for future roles -- Richardson a cabinet post, Obama a future nomination, Biden, well, old Joe loves to run because it's just such a grand opportunity to bloviate at length.

    But the point is clear.  She's on a steam-roll of a ride, and it is already too late to derail her.

  •  The Nomination Will Go to----- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    berith
    1. The candidate endorsed by key newspapers. My recollection is that Iowa was the turning point....The Iowa opinion-making newspapers were more comfortable with Kerry, even though Howard Dean was more popular at the time and just such endorsements were the tipping point.
    1. The candidate who raises the most money, the fastest. [like W did]
    1. The tallest candidate.
  •  I am so fired up by the fact that Hillary (5+ / 0-)

    is in the lead right now.

    It is not that I am a one-issue voter, but gosh and golly, it does give me an incredible amount of hope in the future (a future which I have to admit I have given thought of abandoning due to it's apparent bleakness)  that a WOMAN is actually IN THE LEAD for President of the USA. For now.  Please, don't tell me she's inevitably going to lose it.

    I mean, WOW. Even though I'm seeing more and more heavily veiled women in my home town grocery stores, and progress in the career tracks  has virtually stopped for me and most of my 50-plus year old girl friends, and the cost of quality child care is 1200 a month or more per month, and there's still no paid leave for new mothers or even reasonable health care for same -- and the 'mommy track' career gals were looking forward to allow any work/life balance never has panned out as being anything more than an excuse to pay mother's less than their male counterparts -- and I'm not even talking about the assault on reproductive rights here or trying to get along with bosses that don't feel women should be paid as much as a man that's got his Raider Tickets to buy -- or having to watch that Governator embarrass and demean his dumb Kennedy related wife

    IT's PROGRESS.  Gee, just about 20 years ago Geraldine F. actually was allowed to run for VICE-president (even though nobody really thought the Demo's had a snowball's chance in hell of winning that election.)

    Yep, I think it's great that they let her be in front of the parade, at least for a while.  Keeps the rest of us gals from getting uppity. And, who knows -- maybe after all, in another 20 years, we might even have someone who gets to the BIG campaign.  And then, 20 years after that, maybe a gal will get to actually BE president.  Of course, Amerika will be a small colony of some asian power by then, but gee, a WOMAN!  

    Okay, yeah, tell me I'm bitter. And nobody on Kos is anti-women.  But really, after over 200 years in a supposedly free country, is half the population STILL excluded from decision making on the highest levels?  How come women are held to a higher standard than men?  How come if she wheels and deals with the big boys, as men have always done, she get's pushed out for being too political?  Isn't that politicians are SUPPOSED to be?  

    •  Maybe HRC is naturally cautious & centrist, ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      ... and I am completely misreading her motives for taking such hawkish and interventionist foreign policy positions, but it seems to me that the only way in which her sex makes her an unattractive candidate here is because she decided that a woman cannot be taken seriously as presidential material unless she is a hawkish foreign policy interventionist, and she calibrated her positions accordingly. The result is she appears too conservative, and too calculating and insincere, to appeal to progressive Democrats.

      "What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" - J. Madison

      by berith on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:42:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think the current standings matter at all (0+ / 0-)

    But I wouldn't argue this from kos' figures. This year is different from 2003.

    The theory used to be that you start in small states so that candidates without existing can be showcased.  Then the race for money and votes is on.

    I'm not a political scientist, but I assume the early polling in 2003 reflects name recognition almost entirely.

    Two things are different this year. First, things are moving early because of the accelerated primary and because of the smell of blood in the water.   People know who Clinton, Obama and Edwards are.  I suppose it is still possible that somebody from the back of the field could move up the way Kerry did.

    Second, some candidates have raised a ton of dough early on.  Up until the day the first vote is cast, it doesn't matter of Hillary is licking Obama by a gazillion points if he has the money to keep playing. Hillary could well crash and burn, which probably accounts for her carefulness.  Who knows?  Maybe even this will carry a positive impression to voters who are sick of Bush.

    The kind of raw numbers we're talking about here are especially worthless, I think.  What we really need is some kind of psychometric profile behind the various populations that are represented in each number.   Are Hillary's 39% rabid true believers, or window shoppers attracted to her snazzy debate performances?   Will they abandon her if she makes a misstep?

    My guess is that a lot of HRC's lead amounts to window shopping. It's good news for her, but I don't get the sense she's sealed the deal with the Democratic party.   This is utter speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if the hard core support for the leading three is about the same.

    So I think the numbers at this point are good news for Hillary, but not cause for genuine alarm for everybody else.  

    I've lost my faith in nihilism

    by grumpynerd on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:04:03 AM PDT

  •  Obama has yet to run TV ads (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mihan, chicago minx, dotster

    including the one that will be devastating and really has no abiltiy to be responded to. A simple comparison to Hillary and Edwards in 2002, who has the judgement to be president will be the a tag line, among the universe of dem primary voters it will be a killer.

    put the money in the bag http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/rich222

    by nevadadem on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:04:28 AM PDT

    •  yep, he's going to have great ads (0+ / 0-)

      Obama has a great TV persona and a great personal story -- his "introduction" spots are going to be terrific.

      I'll be very curious about any perceived negativity, though.

      Clearly her camp will accuse him of going negative, losing his claim to a new kind of politics, etc. for even the most benign comparison to her.

      If Obama really ran a spot that questioned whether Hillary had the judgement to be President, I would expect a brutal hit to get laid on Obama by Bill.  Probably in a very subtle delivery, but brutal nonetheless.

      what would joe rauh do?

      by nbutter on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:50:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the more i realize the polls are unpredictable... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque

    the more i think the polls might surprise us all by staying exactly the same as they are today.

    (but I'm hope I'm wrong)

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

    by danthrax on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:05:21 AM PDT

  •  obama will tank (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia

    the electorate is increasingly impatient with him, and he has done nothing to inspire any voters.  i see his support eroding in three months.

  •  Who Cares About All This Inside Baseball Stuff (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenchiledem

    I wanna know when Hillary got so smokin' hot and began looking like Angelina Jolie's even hotter sister?

    Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

    by philgoblue on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:07:10 AM PDT

  •  why not list ALL candiadates negatives (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naderhader, Caldonia

    and positives in one diary?

    Let's see everyone at once - good and bad, side by side.

    I think Hillary's positives outweigh her negatives and think the majority of voters will agree come Nov. 2008

    Let's save ourselves and stop looking for the messiah.

    by leftout on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:07:20 AM PDT

  •  I can't even consider a Clinton ticket. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elie, brooklynbadboy

    Back in '93 it dawned on me that there was
    a "vast right-wing conspiracy".
    and that the Clintons were part of it.
    (pls excuse the danglin' thing)

    Who else but the first so-called "black"-ish Pres could have
    done away with the welfare entitlement for moms and kids?

    Repubs had tried for years.  Couldn't do it.

    Clinton did it.  They say Newt was his partner in crime.
    But it wasn't Newt, it was that engineered stock market
    bubble that made everyone feel so good.
    It made everyone feel like there were so many jobs that
    paid so well that there oughta be a law...so we got one.

    Who else could have buried health insurance reform
    for a decade or so?  

    Only the Clintons.

    When a Repub does it, we're suspicious and defensive.

    When a sax playing, sweet talkin' southerner does it,
    we buy the whole enchilada.

    "Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

    by tribalecho on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:08:06 AM PDT

  •  SICKO (0+ / 0-)

    will hurt Hillary. Dont know if thats been said in this thread yet, but if not, now it has...

  •  Why Hillary is NOT like Joementum in 2003. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, histopresto, Pozzo

    From May 28-June 1 2003:

    "If the 2004 Democratic presidential primary in your state were being held today, and the candidates were  [see below], for whom would you vote?"

    Hillary Clinton 37%
    Joe Lieberman 14%
    Richard Gephardt 10%
    John Kerry 7%
    John Edwards 6%

    http://www.pollingreport.com/...

    Taking the tough votes on this issue - rather than just taking potshots from the outside - should be praised as important steps in helping to end this war."

    by Geekesque on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:13:22 AM PDT

  •  You seem to be completely forgetting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Poet, CA Libertarian

    Edwards, sure a lot can happen before then, but my money is still on him. I sincerly hope that Hillary or Obama doesn't get the nomanation, don't think either has a chance of winning the general, and although I would vote for either, my choice is Edwards to lead us out of the repug bog. I think both Hillary and Obama are nothing but repug lite, both are to close to liberman and the dc elete, and like I said, I would vote for them, just would have to hold my nose while doing so.  

  •  HRC over Kissyface any day. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jackieca, carolinadreamer, Pozzo
    She's far and away a better candidate than Joe Lieberman ever was, even on his best day.  While she's not my first choice, I'd gladly support her in the general election against ANYONE the Republicans have to offer.  

    Still, you're right.  These polls are WAY to early to mean anything, not that that is stopping the 24hr news people from talking about them.  Who knows how this will end up?

  •  No can has (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Poet

    "If that man had an enema, he could've been buried in a matchbox." - Christopher Hitchens, referring to Jerry Falwell

    by Hannibal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:17:09 AM PDT

  •  "Her negatives are huge" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LakersFan

    Your tremendous huge bias is showing, Mr. Kos. As ususal.

    Bloggers and pundits are hyping up Obama now who has plenty negatives himself but by the time the voters get to know him he will have accumulated even more cause they will happen right in front of our eyes.  He is busy doing it already and the media will have to report on them eventually. And if the Dems are too polite to point them out the GOP will do it.

    Besides, after the first debate the Obama tiara the media pundits put on him fell off in a real hurry. Plunk. Is anyone still comparing him with JFK? Not a one.

    re Negatives.

    Name a candidate who doesn't have any and I'll vote for her. Esp. if he/she has been in public life for three decades plus.

    •  Matthews compared him to RFK just today (0+ / 0-)

      And are you saying that you'll vote for Obama in the primary if he still has the best positive to negative favorability ratio then, or is your ranting all just a bunch of hot air to bolster your pre-determined conclusions?

      In 2006, Rove learned the equation that determines the absolute value of stupid. Namely, if you're negative and stupid, you're still just as stupid.

      by ShadowSD on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:11:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  just a huge bunch of hothothot air ... (0+ / 0-)

        so hot

        although you have seen nothing yet if that is a rant for you LOL

        how long have you been on dkos - you should read posters of fav candidate rant along

        P.S. I did hear the Tucker substitute come up with the RFK line too - so I guess I just didn't watch enough TV.

        Plunk!

  •  Hillary is just not electable (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    costello7

    I know she's a smart lady, and she has a great organization and good experience, but she is still way too polarizing a figure to risk throwing away the gift the GOP has given us in 2008.

    Similarly, and I know some folks will throw rocks at me, Obama isn't electable either.  We all like to think we're beyond the racist thing, but frankly he's going to alienate an awful lot of people - more than we can afford to alienate.

    You really want to win?  Nominate John Edwards and then all get behind him.  The best the GOP has on him now is the stupid haircut thing.

  •  I do not see this year playing out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nightsweat

    like 2003-2004.  Clinton is not just a matter of name recognition as was Lieberman.  The debates have started and people have heard here.  the two people we think have a chance at beating her have made a run at it and faded and women are supporting her for a very specific reason.  She also looks and talks like a front runner.  She seems more competent than Edwards or Obama.
    People are counting on getting Bill back in the bargain and I have to admit that she is speaking very well for herself.  She is much more natural and self possessed than the other guys.  There is also a sense that she is tougher than they are and of course she has way more international experience.  The only other person running who projects the same air of competence is Biden, but he is a bit of a lose cannon.
    Unless Gore gets in, I don't see anyone beating Clinton.

    •  The only scenario I saw as possible victory (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TeresaInPa

      For Obama is pretty convoluted. I don't see one for anyone else except Gore.

      The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

      by nightsweat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:25:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes me either (0+ / 0-)

        and what people hated about her in 1992, the fact that she was not just some ceremonial party hostess, but rather a hands on political partner, is now looking like an advantage considering the mess we are in internationally.
        But now we remember that Senator Clinton has met all these world leaders and talked policy with them.  She has traveled to their countries and welcomed them to ours, there is a relationship.
        This morning I watched the AFSCSME event and I have to say she sounded more populist than she has in a long time.  She was asked about Don't ask don't tell and said she was against the policy.  I was impressed with her clear answers.  Now she was not clear about getting all the troops out of Iraq at a specific time.  She even seemed to say that she would leave some in specific places to protect against Al Queda getting more of a foot hold there and to protect and help the Kurds further develop their society.  I am not sure how I feel about that, but in general her response what, "if Bush won't get out troops out, I will".  
        All in all she did okay, I thought better than the other two.

        •  Well, the troops in Kurdistan are not just to (0+ / 0-)

          "protect" the Kurds, but that is a good way of putting it.  The tension between the Kurds and the Turks is very real and would likely  blow up if there were no stabilizing force.  We need to keep the peace there in particular because of Turkey's proximity to Europe.  

          •  The Turks are part of Europe... (0+ / 0-)

            ...onluy by a sliver though.

            My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

            by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:35:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You should check... (0+ / 0-)

          ...the exact committments all three are making.

          Anyone saying they leave troops in Iraq (outside and embassy) is likely to either---

          pull out eventually after much more bloodshed...or escalate.

          Also watch their Iran statements.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:34:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's 580 friggin' days away... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    histopresto, SouthernFried

    [rant]
    Can someone tell me why anyone is even pondering this crap right now? Seriously, I am an involved citizen on several levels and truthfully I am not even paying attention to anything any candidate says right now cause it's meaningless. You all know the average citizen isn't going to commit until sometime after the New Year.

    I can't even believe they've had debates at this point. It's like the NBA/NHL playoffs for Pete's sake - no one is watching. Do we really need a two-year Presidential campaign? Kennedy didn't announce his candidacy until Jan 2, 1960 - less than a year before the election.

    Here's who gives a rat's ass - extreme political junkies in serious need of an intervention and the media, because it makes it easier for them to shirk their responsibility to be the fourth estate.

    As Joe ordinary citizen looking from the outside it just reeks of who can suck up to the money the fastest. I'd love to see a bill or better yet amendment limiting Presidential elections to the nine months prior to the actual voting day. That way we'd be getting a lot more substance than the fluff being thrown out there - pick my campaign song - please...

    Have at me with your comments but good Lord that felt good...
    [/rant]

    The only difference between a madman and myself is that I am not mad.

    by RIRedinPA on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:20:57 AM PDT

  •  This Party And This Nation Have Clinton Fatigue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShadowSD, dotster

    Frankly I (like most people I know) am really tired of the Clintons' stranglehold on the party and am very skeptical of their vision for the future.

    The Republicans are probably very comforted by the prospect of facing Hillary in the general election.  She just doesn't wear well.  And, despite its love affair with Bubba, there is a general consensus among my peers that nostalgia for the Clinton era is like a verse from the classic Merle Haggard song:

    No amount of money can buy from me,
    The memories that I have of then.
    No amount of money can pay me
    To go back and live through it again.

    Admittedly, I am an Obama supporter.  He has charisma, eloquence, vision and freshness.  And his name isn't Clinton, nor was he in any way associated with the Clinton administration.

    Podesta, McAuliffe, Wolfson and Carville had their day.  Most of us just don't want to see the same faces repackaged for yet another long administration packed with rhetoric but void of substance.  Let Robert Reich have a well-deserved retirement!

    In the end, I maintain hope that the public will have a real choice between Obama and Thompson.  But I have lived long enough to know that the treachery and Machiavellian proficiency of the Clinton machine is a formidable obstacle to change in the party.

    Bill and Hillary have proved time and again that their vision for America is what's best for Bill and Hillary.  The fact that they squandered every opportunity for greatness is not sufficient argument for their having one more chance at the brass ring.

    And ultimately I think that simple fact is what will make the difference.  Chris Matthews be damned!

    •  Please tell: What is Barack Obama's vision? (0+ / 0-)

      and if you can do that without doing the above again, i.e. emotionally hammering Bill and Hillary Clinton ... and instead by concentrating on Obama's vision alone which sets him apart from the rest

      I would v. much appreciate it.

      •  Does Hillary have a vision? (0+ / 0-)

        Seriously, both campaigns need one. I'm surprised Hillary hasn't come up with one especially after the whole "It's the Economy, Stupid" meme of 1992.

        Obama can't run on "The Audacity of Hope" forever either.

        •  She is in it to win. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elie, dotster

          I'm really not sure what she does after she wins.

        •  Obama Has As Much Substance As FDR Or Reagan (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dotster

          I wouldn't short-change The Audacity of Hope.  As a campaign manifesto, it works quite well in outlining the overall vision of the campaign.  I'm quite certain that policy papers will follow, as is evidenced by the recent Health Care plan.  And those policy statements will change as the campaign assimilates the campaigns of the also-rans.

          Al Gore and John Edwards will be ideological forces in the Party who will fill in the more wonkish dots of how things will be accomplished.  But, as for the vision thing, Obama has it down pat.

          •  Gore's vision is one of the main reasons (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk

            you were able to psot that comment, FYI :)

            "But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.", Cerf & Kahn

            Gore and Obama have compatible and in some ways complementary thought processes from what I infer, and hence Gore/Obama makes the best sense for the country at this juncture.

            Truth, be it convenient or inconvenient, is all there is.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:14:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  "...as for the vision thing, Obama has (0+ / 0-)

            it down pat."

            He does?

            What is it?

            Here is your chance. Outline the overall vision for the Obama campaign. And where is Obama's audacity? Where?  

            •  Another Clinton Street Brawl (0+ / 0-)

              I have stated that Obama's vision is clearly and concisely outlined in his book.  For me to reiterate or paraphrase his words would be simply a waste of everybody's bandwidth and my time.

              Now, I charge you:  Present Hillary's vision!  

              You are demanding a response as if you maintain the high moral ground.  I don't buy that premise.  And I don't believe the Clinton people will be able to maintain their leader solely by the tactic of forcing others to defend themselves or endlessly restate their positions.  Hillary needs to state her vision, too.

              •  actually he's looking for a reason... (0+ / 0-)

                ...to vote for Obama. He's saying: Sell me on him!

                My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:19:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Here Is The Answer! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mightymouse, elie

              Obama has the ability to rally people, to make them feel optimistic about the future and better about themselves. That is the essence of leadership. That was the magic of JFK.

              The rest of it is window dressing.

              As for Hillary, she's proved that she has the stamina and the cujones to brawl it out to the bitter end.  However, once the benchmark of election has been reached, her record indicates that she is more adept at riding the wave than channeling the storm.  The Clinton campaign of 1992 had reams of specific, concrete position papers on diverse policies matters.  They could have saved a forest by simply stating the obvious: of course, none of these statements matter unless they are absolutely essential to our maintaining power.

              Jimmy Carter said that he'd commute all Vietnam draft evaders.  The pentagon didn't like it and threatened him.  He did it anyway.

              Bill Clinton said he'd allow Gays to serve in the military.  The pentagon didn't like it.  His resolve collapsed like a bunch of broccoli.

              So, don't you dare employ that patronizing tone with me.  That old dog won't hunt!  The audacity of Obama's campaign is that, for whatever nebulous qualities of personality and character he seems to possess, his voice is authentic and his intentions seem genuine.

              That is enough for the people who do most of the living and dying in this country.  And I won't be bullied into a pissing match over whose plan saves three cents on variable overhead.  The era of Big Lies is over.

            •  Allow me to offer another vision. (0+ / 0-)

              Universal Healthcare.

              Complete withdrawal from Iraq.

              Extended grant money for University and College education and lower interest rates on student loans.

              A return to the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers--aka get rid of the unitary executive doctrine

              Tax Justice--An increase in the contribution of the wealthiest 2% to the Treasury.

              Four clear cut proposals and promises.

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:26:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Keep Hope Alive. (0+ / 0-)

            I bought a copy and it dragged.

            The evidence that Obama is providing about his position in speeches going back to 2005 indicates that he has no intention of removing all non-embassy troops from Iraq.

            He even expressly stated that wants to reduce footprints and not withdraw. It's in a CFR speech 2005.  it's on his wesite.

            He seems to see  virtue in an enduring presence in an Iraq Free State.

            My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

            by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:38:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it's a vision of 50,000 troops in Iraq (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elie

          And a union buster as her "chief strategist".

          We could probably find a spot in the new Clinton admin for Senior DLC Bagman Terry McAuliffe and James "Free Scooter!" Carville, too.

          I'll take Obama's inexperience, Edwards' hair, or Gore's anything over that shit any day of the week.

      •  Actually Obama offers us a vision (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elie, dotster

        of a way out of the angry partisanship that caused the Clinton fatigue.

        I guess a candidate can be the anti-Clinton and the pro good government at the same time.  

        •  Well Stated (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yoshimi, dotster

          I have a twenty-three year old son and a seventeen-year old daughter who are energized by the Obama campaign.  That is proof positive for me that there is substance to this movement.  I haven't seen anything like it since the days of JFK and RFK and Gene McCarthy.  

          It gives me hope that there is more to politics than winning at all costs, which is the only Clinton legacy.

      •  Obama's Vision Is Stated Explicitly (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, keeplaughing, elie, ShadowSD, dotster

        He outlined it in detail in his book, The Audacity of Hope.  I would recommend that you read it.

        •  Like the Obama book your comments are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Salo

          without substance IMHO

          ok I'm done w. this subject - you had your chance

          when bloggers without facts start to reach for nonsense personal attacks I know I am wasting my time which I should have known in the first time

          thanks for another fav. candidate lesson on dkos

          •  You're either a Troll Or A Bully (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ShadowSD

            And therefore you got the answer you deserved.

          •  well said. (0+ / 0-)

            .

            My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

            by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:39:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What you should do is go on his website. (0+ / 0-)

            Check his speeches on Iraq.  Search for statements like: over the horizon forces, residual forces, reduced footprint, withdrawal, remaining infrastructure.

            Obama maintained the virtue of a continued presence in Iraq in a CFR speech in 2005 and some of that still remains in the current plans.

            they have all make sounds about keepin some infrastructure there.

            do the same with each candidate. See which one is making the most commitment to withdrawal.

            My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

            by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:43:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I bought the book. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse

          So you could say I have contributed some cash to Obama.

          It left me with the impression that he's a bit of a scold. Far too much preaching about being good fathers, bootstrapping and such.  

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:17:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary is Very Electable (6+ / 0-)

    Thanks to Kos for stirring up the true Hillary haters on this site.  Kos never ceases to amaze me with his biased views.

    I was just checking the head-to-head matchups on recent polls and Hillary is making excellent progress.

    If you read this diary narrative by Kos, it might make a bit of sense if Hillary's campaign came to a standstill this minute, while Obama and Edwards continued to campaign.  No consideration is ever given to the fact that Hillary:

    1.  Knows what she has to do.
    1.  Is out there doing it every day
    1.  Will not stop fighting, no matter what

    How relevant is Hillary's national lead?  Well, for starters, her poll numbers are being put out there daily by MSM.  This is free publicity for Hillary as those who might not otherwise have supported her are seeing that she not only hasn't crumbled but she is ahead of all the other candidates.  This causes people to take a second look and to probe further to find out more about Hillary.  

    When you work hard and keep your nose to the grind and run a clean and polished campaign, you get good poll numbers.  Then those good poll numbers work on your behalf.

    Obama is not a leader.  He has leadership qualities but no way is he ready to lead this country.

    •  yeah people are dying to find out more about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dotster

      Hillary, that accounts for the 20000 in Atlanta 15000 in Iowa city the massive amounts of small donors, oops wait wrong candidate!

      put the money in the bag http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/rich222

      by nevadadem on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:29:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary isn't ready either... (0+ / 0-)

      never will be judging from this
      http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...

    •  Hillary will rally many to vote against (0+ / 0-)

      her, whereas I'm not sure Edwards or Obama would attract such vitriolic passion.
      I don't know what it is -- I would happily cast a vote for Hillary to be president -- but I truly believe that to be the case.

    •  If There Is Another Ross Perot! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elie

      We conveniently forget that Bubba managed to squeak by in '92 because Ross Perot hated GHWB more than he disliked the idea of a Clinton presidency.

      The Clintons are extremely good at playing the angles and exploiting the animosities, but that doesn't produce a mandate (as was demonstrated by Hillary's abortive National Health Care Plan).  

      Frankly, I lost all respect for Bubba and his bride when he channeled Ronald Reagan (through the medium of Dick Morris) and declared that "The era of Big Government is over".  That, more than just about anything, demonstrated his pragmatism extended solely and absolutely in holding on to power for Bill Clinton.  If this sort of self-interest constitutes vision, then they have in droves.  If vision involves an underlying belief in government's ability to elevate the status of its less fortunate citizens while preserving the way of life for our country's  workers into the next generation, then our Party will have to look elsewhere for leadership.

      •  Once again, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        redlief, costello7

        The exit polling in 1992 showed that Perot drew votes about equally from Bush I and Clinton. Billy would've won even if Perot hadn't been in the race.

        Full Disclosure: I support A Democrat for President in 2008. (-4.50,-3.54)

        by SouthernFried on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:23:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  uuurgghhh... (0+ / 0-)

        ...Perot was an impossibility without the mismanagement of the Bush Admin.  Also Clinton had Bush over a barrel. No way could the old man have beaten Big Dog in a straight fight.

        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

        by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:28:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, she isn't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shoes4Industry

      And saying she isn't electable is not "Hillary hatred" - it is fallacious and disingenuous to suggest that it is.

      Rather, it is simply acknowledging the political reality.  Hillary has bigger solid negative numbers than any of the other legitimate candidates.  This is not a feature for her.

      I realize when you're swimming along with the mainstream Democratic current, the momentum for Hillary is strong - but you have to think outside the current, what happens in the general election.  Every point matters.  Do you feel that strongly about Hillary personally that you are willing to risk losing in 2008?

      Know that, in a Democratic administration, Hillary will have profound influence to drive policy, even if she remains in the Senate.

  •  2004 and 2008 are different animals. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    keeplaughing

    There are some parallels, but to simply say tha the frontrunner lost in 2004 and that is likely to happen again in 2008 is too simplistic of an analysis.

    Dean was practically anded the nomination prior to Iowa.  He lost in Iowa, buty not by a landslide, and then turned around and came in second in New Hampshire.  He was still in the game, but collapsed quickly after that, largely because Joe Trippi had pissed away his campaign war chest on advertsiing too early and instead of building a strong national organization.

    When Kerry won Iowa, he rose to become the anti-Dean candidate beltway Dems needed to keep power out of the hands of ordinary people and voila, Kerry had the national organization to challenge and beat Dean.

    With no clear frontrunner and a tightly grouped set of candidates, having a national organization in place propelled Kerry to the top quickly.

    Hillary has a great political organization.  She and Bill have been building it for years.  If Obama and Edwards don't build good ground organizations, Hillary can walk away with the nomination.

    If the candidates play smart and build strong organizations in the early stages instead of letting the beltway consultants (ughhh!) get them to throw money away on ads (that directly benefit the consultants' pocketbooks) we may have a real fight on our hands for the nomination.    

    Given the demographic split (female voters, african-americans and southern voters each having a natural candidate), it is very likely we will have no clear winner.  I think a brokered convention is a distinct possibility.

  •  Flawed analysis (5+ / 0-)

    Markos analysis is flawed on so many levels debunking it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Hillary is not Lieberman.

    Obama is not Kerry.

    Markos cannot bring himself to accept the fact that Hillary has a strong base in the Democratic party. It is not just name recognition but an emotional bond Democrats have with her.

    Kerry had many years of experience in Washington, especially in national security and foreign policy. So when Dean tanked Kerry became the safe choice for the party. He was experienced and ready to be president. Obama has two years experience in the senate. He has little experience on a national level. He is ready for the presidency.

    If there is a challenge to Hillary it will come from Edwards.

  •  Booktour Obama & Queen Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    They both top the polls for the same reason...
    ...huge name reco delivered through the MSM.

    These polls are simply a reflection of Hillary's Bill.
    ...and Obama's publisher riding a good wave.

    The 600 people sampled in these early polls probably more
    knowledgeable about American Idol than any issues.

    The places where people are actually paying attention are in
    the early states where they take this seriously, Iowa & New Hampshire.

  •  Kos, could you please post a 'with Gore' poll (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    0wn, Justus

    this month, along with the usual 'without Gore' straw poll?

    Please see here?

    ps: i posted this request a couple of times, but not sure if you saw either of those comments. I suspect that you will notice this one for sure, hence the third try.

    Truth, be it convenient or inconvenient, is all there is.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:43:03 AM PDT

  •  Your analysis doesn't hold water... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LakersFan

    ...if you go back to the 2000 election and view Democratic polls.  Gore was ahead from the start, ahead in ALL of the polls (national and state by state), won in Iowa, won in New Hampshire and went on to win the nomination....easily.  If your analysis was right then Gore would have languished and Bradley would have caught him - he never did.

    This campaign is much different than 2004 when Dean ran.  Dean was a true outsider and it scared a lot of people and since fear always wins the day, Dems went with the "electable" Kerry.

    It looks like people are scared that Hillary is "unelectable", without really viewing the facts.  Hillary has had to endure 15 years of conservative gasbags spewing hateful words about her..she has to overcome this and show America who she is.

    Kos, I read negative crap about you all of the time and see the talking heads spewing lies and distorted information about you.  Should we believe these people just because they say it?  No, absolutely not.  I don't know you, but I bet that you would like to be judged by your actions, values, and deeds.  Likewise, Hillary wants to be treated the same.  A meme has been repeatedly told to the public "Hillary is unelectable!".  I'm finding that as people get to know the real Hillary, their minds are changing.  Lieberman's numbers were going down as the primary season wore on.  Hillary's are going up!  I believe this to be true because people realize that she is a likeable AND electable AND qualified candidate.

    •  You Deaniacs never give up (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYFM, John Poet

      I think you're basically right here, btw. But please, stop with the "Dean was stopped by a cabal of DC powers that were scared by his 'people power'" Puh-leeze. He ran an awful awful campaign. Don't take that to mean that he would have been a bad president. Quite the contrary. But come one. The man had a 2:1 or better cash advantage, and the SEIU and an army of volunteers behind him going into Iowa, and he stunk up the joint! There was no conspiracy to "get" him. Believe me, because I would have been part of it had there been one. A LOT of the powers that be in Dem politics in DC really liked Dean and supported him. Way more than supported Kerry going into Iowa. He (and his campaign) lost it. Period. It was his to lose and he did it.

      End of rant. As I say, otherwise you're dead on.

      •  The Army sank him. (0+ / 0-)

        Who wants out of towners spoliing the big day?

        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

        by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:39:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  he went negative (0+ / 0-)

        Dean had negative spots on the air until days before the election -- and he was the frontrunner, with buckets of cash and a pocketful of endorsements.

        I think he looked mean, and possibly arrogant, to a lot of Iowans.

        True, Gephardt was hitting him (hell, they all were), but I don't think he handled it well.

        what would joe rauh do?

        by nbutter on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:42:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I always prefer descriptive evidence (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, ShadowSD

    to polls or fundraising totals. Last night when the 2008 presidential election came up, some good friends of mine, all 20-something professionals ranging from far left to moderate right, were steadfastly anti-Hillary. I was surprised since I myself haven't made up my mind. But speaking from personal experience, the polls are right about her. You either love her or hate her and she's not going to change any minds between now and the primaries.
    I can't see how that's a good thing for her campaign.

  •  And another thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo

    Lieberman ran as a pro Iraq war, Bush loving Democrat. He was acting like he was ashamed to be a Democrats and bragging about how much he loved Bush and Cheney.

    It is deluded to compare any Dem running with Lieberman.

  •  campaign history is replete with early leaders (0+ / 0-)

    who went no where.

    I have no idea if Sen.s Clinton, Obama, or Thompson will do anything next year. I am inclined to think she will do pretty well.

    11/7/06. America won. The Republicans lost. Our duty is to earn that trust.

    by Dave from Oregon on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:51:32 AM PDT

  •  Yes, National Polls Are Meaningless, BUT... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kipzoo

    I find this diary a bit too cavalier and dismissive of the polls.  They are not predictive, yet.  But they are a decent snapshot of where we are today.  I hope DKos isn't deluding itself into rationalizing why polls are meaningless (remember Bush-Kerry '04?) again.

    2004 was a weak field that was garnering very little national media attention.  In 2008 (largely because people are ready for Bush to be gone), the attention has been much more intense, on a much stronger field.

    So, that being said, the polls may be essentially meaningless and a lot can change. But this isn't 2004, and Hillary's sizeable lead isn't based purely on name recognition anymore.

    Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

    by dansac on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:08:25 PM PDT

  •  Celine Dion???? WTF? (3+ / 0-)

    From Fleetwood Mac to Celine Dion.

    Triangulation?

    My level of possible-Hillary-support just fell through the floor. I can't identify.

  •  LOL, KOS! (0+ / 0-)

    forget the polling, past trends tell us that the candidate with the MOST cash in the war chest wins the primaries.  so far, that's hillary.  

    do some research and quit basing your predictions on polls.  

  •  I've been agreeing with Kos on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nbutter

    all year long.  I think HRC has name recognition and it will slowly erode.  But I have to admit, I'm impressed by  the way she opened up her lead.  That means that some sceptical people watched the debates and swung into her column.  I also think that Hillary has a natural "in" with a huge demographic (females) that might mean more than I previously thought.

    "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 Jun 19, 2007 at 12:30:52 PM PDT

    •  she's a tortoise, not a hare (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, SpiderStumbled22

      she does have name recognition; she also has a poor media image.

      so she starts out with high support and high negatives.

      as people see more of her and the other candidates, she loses some (to appealing rivals like Obama). But she also gains some (since her in-person presence is better than her "image").

      so far, it appears that she has capped the rate of loss to Obama, while she is beginning to increase the rate of "second look" gains.

      stay tuned!

      what would joe rauh do?

      by nbutter on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:32:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Gore talk is getting tiriesome (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, elie, kipzoo

    becuase the people who support him have that inevitable air about their candidate when the simple truth is that he's made no steps towards running and he would have to fight off at 2 or 3 candidates that have huge national platforms and followings.  I don't think he has the stomach for that kind of fight when he can do lots of good by beating the global warming drum.

    "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 Jun 19, 2007 at 12:40:32 PM PDT

    •  The nomination is IMO Gore's for the taking... (0+ / 0-)

      Gore can stroll in by October and pretty much sew up the nomination any time he wants to I think. Getting in earlier only hurts him since it makes him a mortal man.

      •  I don't think he is as popular as all that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg

        He's very popular on this site (although I often wonder how many of his cheerleaders here voted for Nader in 2000) and among voters who put the enviroment as their top priority.  But in the wider party, I think he shares a lot of popularity with Hillary.  I think if he entered the race, it would be a very tough 3 way race beetween Obama, Hillary and Gore.  I think Obama would win, being the outsider.  The only sure thing is Gore's entry would knock Edwards off the list of serious contenders.

        "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 Jun 19, 2007 at 03:45:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's why polls don't matter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShadowSD

    In New Hampshire, one of the first primary states, the latest poll says that 48% have NO IDEA who they will vote for, with only 43% saying they are even leaning toward someone, and a paltry 8% saying they have definitely decided.

    If only 8% of people in what is one of the 2 most tuned-in states in the country know who they're going to vote for, and half of the likely voters have NO IDEA who they're going to vote for, you can bet that they numbers are even more drastic in just about any other state.

    Probably less than 5% of people know who they want to vote for at this point. They're not paying enough attention to know. So anyone (for example, the media) who thinks that the polls of these people is in any way meaningful is just deluding themselves.

    •  However, don't forget that: (0+ / 0-)

      It is likely that the people who haven't decided will break in essentially the same fashion as the people who have decided. After all, the dynamics of the race are the same for both groups.

      If anything, the early deciders probably tend to over-estimate the appeal of "movement" candidates like a Howard Dean (or even an Obama) -- appeal that slips when the late deciders make decisions based more on traditional pragmatism than emotional attachment to "a cause".

      I think this is exactly what happened with Dean in 2004. We've seen it before with candidates like Gene McCarthy. The centrist pragmatic vote may tend to come into focus a little later.

      •  Fortunately, (0+ / 0-)

        That centrist pragmatic vote will vote for Bill Richardson.

        (By they way: As if the voters have any idea which candidate is "centrist"! Current polling shows that Clinton is most popular among those who consider themselves liberal, whereas Edwards is most popular among those who consider themselves conservative democrats. Riddle me that.)

        •  Nobody is voting for Richardson (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jxg, peace voter, keeplaughing

          He's toast. Unfocused and rambling in both debates. Unfocused and rambling on Meet the Press. Ideal Supreme Court Justice was Byron White, who wrote the dissent in Roe v. Wade -- Richardson didn't even know.

          He's a non-factor in this race...and, frankly, doing a great deal of harm to his VP prospects with his tepid campaign performances.

  •  No..Obama (0+ / 0-)

    My operating theory of how Gore wins the nomination (and the White House), is that Obama is running as a stalking horse for Gore, then bows out throwing his support to Gore. This is a very elegant scheme, if you think about it, and would set Obama up as a major hero of tomorrow, when he will be much better qualified to the President, and his eventual bid for the White House, eight or twelve years hence, will be much enhanced. Think thee upon that!
    mrmyster/santa fe

    •  Kennedy was inexperienced (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elie

      and made many gaffs in his campaigns (and screwed up royally early in his presidency as well.)  He won both the nomination and the presidency.

      I think some people are underestimating both Obama and his supporters.  Yes, there have been mistakes, but I think Edwards' mistakes have been more damaging and less well-managed.  And yet he's the one with the most national campaign experience.  Further, I think Obama has already demonstrated some learning from his mistakes.  Not so Edwards.  

      Don't underestimate Obama.  He's in this to win, and like Hillary, he's not a whiner.

      •  Probably.... (0+ / 0-)

        OK. I understand your point. But, on the other hand, don't over estimate Obama. This is risky, but let me ask you this: If Obama were exactly the same man, but his name were John Smith, caucasian, of Middletown, Ohio -- would you, and America be as excited about him?  Remove race, remove the Horatio Alger element, what have you got -- a bright, well-spoken man who is barely a politician and badly needs seasoning. You draw a parallel to JFK - no thank you! He was not a good president and what happened to him terrifies me as regards Obama. Let's not risk it; let's not risk anything -- this one time let's go for the obvious best man!
          The only man I know who has all the experience,  all the smarts and knows where he is going is Albert Gore. The only question is how to get him on the ticket? A Gore-Obama ticket would suit me fine. But Obama in the top spot would be, I fear, a self-
        defeating exercise in NeoSentimental-Liberalism.
         
        JIM/santa fe
        born in the Show Me State.
        ###

    •  He might get in... (0+ / 0-)

      ...but i doubt it.

      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

      by Salo on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:44:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, keeplaughing

    Could it just be that Hillary Clinton happens to be smarter than the other candidates?  She looks smarter, sounds smarter, acts smarter and makes both Obama and Edwards look like struggling novices.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

    Her support is growing and I predict it will continue to grow.  

  •  Media making pick (0+ / 0-)

    We should just pack up and go home. Corporations at its best.

    "We the People must hold those that proclaim a Terrorist or Nation can change who we are must be-held accountable for there words."

    by army193 on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:23:22 PM PDT

  •  Kos... Hillary Clinton is no Joe Lieberman, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    keeplaughing

    despite the efforts of so many people to paint her as such. Her numbers are going up as the campaign progresses and people pay more attention. She is winning in the debates (not just on points, but on style and presentation). She handed Obama his ass yesterday after he tried to attack her. He ended up with bad publicity on Olberman, a show viewd by a couple million of the Democratic base.

  •  Hillary's new campaign ad is out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shoes4Industry

    It is really funny. It channels the Saprano's. She is really trying to loosen her rigid image. With this, i think it helps. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...

  •  Current polls are very indicative (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary keeps going up following each debate, when the candidates are really visible to the voters. Those negatives are from 15 years of not being on the full offensive. Now, voters are seeing her as the strong candidate in the race. She's really the only one that has been looking presidential.

  •  This time around... (0+ / 0-)

    ...the election results from those tiny states, New Hampshire and Iowa, will mean squat compared to the Tsunami Tuesday follow up. Lot more delegates from the bigger states. Besides no one from the bigger states will care how those two states voted. We will have to refigure.

  •  HILLARY WILL WIN! (0+ / 0-)

    She comes across on TV as having FAR more gumshion, strength and intestinal fortitude than either Edwards or Obama.  Thats why I think she will win the nomination and be the First Female President.  She will win an overwhelming majority of female votes and enough men to run away with it.

    Is she as liberal as Edwards or Obama? Perhaps not, but if so that only shows she has matured enough to understand that politics is about what is possible.

    Socialized medicince will never happen here. Too many Americans making too much money to turn a huge profit center like health care into a government controlled wasteland.  I am not saying its right, just that it is. As long as medical care is profit driven, it will never be right.

    Want to fix it? Make medical school 100% free and move to triple the enrollement.  Also have iron clad committments that if you accept the scholarship you will practice X type of medicine in Y place for Z years.   Do away with most medical malpractice claims also.  Its NOT the insurance that kills them, its the defensive way they practice medicine.  I had 5 people ask me the same questions and sign the same forms over and over prior to surgery -- its INSANE -- but they are petrified of being sued.  So much of how doctors practice now is in response to the fear of litigation.  

    Anyway, Hillary is going to win.  And if she does I bet she will be a better President than Bill was.  

    •  Medicine and the Future (0+ / 0-)

      Your analysis is interesting but naive.  I agree that subsidizing or defraying the cost of medical school IS one of the answers to the current crisis.  But I don't believe flooding the market with physicians is any kind of an answer.  There are quite enough physicians in this country now, but they are not equitably distributed throughout the country because of market forces, particularly personal debt and availability of liability insurance.  

      Whatever the outcome, there absolutely must be some concrete and comprehensive national initiatives forthcoming, or else the whole medical/industrial establishment will implode within a decade.

      •  The Government should make ALL eductional... (0+ / 0-)

        expensed at least TAX DEDUCTIBLE. And encourage education at all stages of life.

        •  You'll Get No Argument From Me... (0+ / 0-)

          Unlike our fellows in the major Western industrial democracies, we Americans still hold on to that quaint and superannuated 19th century notion that education is a matter of personal responsibility and privilege, holding no intrinsic value for the commonwealth apart from its function in increasing personal wealth.

          Until we let go of that truly ridiculous idea, we'll always wonder why there is no workable social infrastructure in this country.

          Even the Boomer generation (perhaps especially the Boomer generation) perpetuates that ridiculous notion that education must be accomplished either by the privilege of wealth or at the cost of a lifetime's indentured servitude through our truly criminal federal student loan system.

          The British, Canadians, French, Germans, Australians, Italians , Japanese and just about everybody else with a vested interest in maintaining prosperity have been convinced that low-cost education is an investment in preserving that prosperity.

          But we just don't get it!  And most of us don't really believe that Horatio Alger is fiction.

  •  I don't read the poles. I don't care what they say (0+ / 0-)
    I will never vote for Hillary Clinton and question Obama. I am sick of the stage(d) shows and the marketing. I am sick of the banners, the displays, the obscene amounts of money spent to "be in it to win it" I AM SICK OF IT!

    I may or may not vote this time around , so disgusted am I with the whole shallow process. I don't and will not read the poles. Why should I?  
    To see who to vote for?  

  •  Edwards/Richardson is the ticket we can win with (0+ / 0-)

    Obama will never win a national election. He's held national office exactly 2 years.  His middle name is Hussein.  Both his father and stepfather are Muslim.  Could we handicap ourselves anymore than that???

    Edwards will tell the country that we care about workingclass people and globalization; Richardson brings the national security/energy experience and the diverse background w/o Obama's obvious baggage.

    It's a winning ticket: think on it, people.  And we get Elizabeth too!

  •  Yay Hillary! (0+ / 0-)

    I think she won this thing months ago.  My guess is Clinton-Bayh in 2008!

    Middle Class Mother-F!cking Warrior

    by bink on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:32:35 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for that Incisive Prediction... (0+ / 0-)

      I was feeling nauseous and desperately needed a complete purge.

      Actually, I don't have a thing against Senator Edwards.  I always thought that the 2004 election might actually have been very different if the ticket had been flipped to Edwards/Kerry.

      That said, I think his  2008 campaign just doesn't have the vitality or the moral authority it possessed four years ago.  Then he was a genuine populist riding the crest of an authentic populist movement.  Today he is just another Establishment candidate juggling the status quo.

      As for Evan Bayh, I really can't tell you how much the Democratic Party doesn't need its own version of Dan Quayle. (BTW, the chances of two white men being the Democratic ticket in 2008 are less than your chances of hitting this week's Powerball).

  •  Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear (0+ / 0-)

    Don't be ruling out Edwards :D

  •  stupidity abounds in this thread (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977

    I may get troll-rated for this, but I just have to say that I'm disappointed by some of the thoughtless comments made in this thread. There's more name-calling and rumor-mongering going on here than a jr. high cafeteria.

    In particular, I'm frustrated by variations of the following posts:

    1. "[INSERT CANDIDATE HERE] will be our nominee in 2008. There's nothing we can do about it."
    1. "[INSERT NOMINEE HERE] and [INSERT VP NOMINEE HERE] would be a good ticket in '08."
    1. The various name-calling going on this thread. You all know who you are.
  •  National Polls (0+ / 0-)

    National polling = nothing.

    Far too many non caucus/primary goers are included. A lot of them are casual Democrats who say "Hillary" because that is who they know best.

    She will probably lead in national polling until Iowa.

    If our party wants a nominee who represents our values and is electable we better stop talking about how we think we "know" who is going to win and start thinking about what we want in a nominee.  

  •  Kos is anti Hill but she has it in the bag. (0+ / 0-)

    I've never doubted that Hill would win the nomination. That leaves the question of the the general. Against a boilerplate Republican like Rudy, Thompson, McCain I also think she can win and win decisively. The only wild card is Bloomberg. He's impressive. He's basically a Libertarian Democrat ie. Fiscal conservative and social liberal. If he gets in all bets are off. It would become a race between him and Hill. The regular Republicans are toast. He would draw massively from both parties.

  •  Hahaha ... that's right! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    State Department

    Lieberman ran for president.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    I just spit out some beer.

  •  Well.....THANK GOD!!!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    That was actually the scariest part of Kos's post, the fact that Joe Lieberman was a frontrunner in '03. Can you imagine..... "President Lieberman"????

    •  Benedict Arnold And Joe Lieberman (0+ / 0-)

      Two names that will go down in infamy.

      But Vice Presidential candidates who desert their party have a special spot in the pantheon of American villains.  After all, we all speak so well today about John C. Calhoun.

  •  Predicting the future is not impossible (0+ / 0-)

      It is more intuitional than merely a calculation.
    My long term interest in "studying the future" stems from interests in science fiction writers, futurists, and keeping track of research.  Long ago I learned a valuable lesson while serving in the military.  I was involved in electronics that was classified, only to realize that what was secret usually hit the commercial market ten years later.
       Science fiction writers and futurists have an uncanny ability to predict future trends, because they strive for the larger picture, which involves systems thinking(the interconnectedness of vast areas of human knowledge). Our society places great emphasis on specialization due to the enormous complexity of the branches of science and other human endeavors that require nothing less for the achievment of efficiency of the parts working as a whole.  Trying to describe this can be difficult, but it is like a mosaic of dots that while close up can be incomprehensible, taken at a distance, a picture begins to emerge.  It takes intuition to connect the dots so to speak.  It is more than relying on statistics, which only lends itself to the hope that the past will be repeated mathematically, which is only partially true, but when one considers the near infinite large set of variables, the future becomes quite complex on an order of magnitude that staggers the imagination.  There is the outstanding quality of intuition that is able to synthesize large amounts of data from a vast array of multidisciplinary areas of human knowledge that adds to increasing one's predictive successes.  There is psychology of the self, and the introspective ability to tap deep into one's deepest layers and to realize we all have the basic fundamental needs and wants that we share with a common humanity as well as prejudices and biases.  There is sociology and seeing the weaving trends as humans acting in groups and organizations and they usually tend to follow opinion leaders. There are the usual political calculations of getting the message out appropriately as Hilary demonstrated today while being interviewed by "motormouth Mathews" and nearly shitcanned him off the stage. There is the study of political pr and advertising methods, and television pundits that have to be taken into account and this calls for an artistic eye to distinguish what we perceive and what many of us perceive.  The variables can become quite extensive and that is why the mysterious process of intuition and empathy become crucial in the art and science of predicting the future.  In strategy, it is better to play one's cards close to the vest due to the fact that Republicans also have access to the same blogs as democrats.

  •  Eroding support (0+ / 0-)

    There isn't any evidence of her "eroding support", in fact, the opposite is true.

    By working to get her "negatives" down (which she is doing), she has room to grow and, the, would have an alternative way to go -- up.

    I know that's not a popular position for a Kos reader to post, but I look forward to strongly support Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Gore, based on the action of my convention's delegates.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site