Daily Kos

2008: 1/30 results

Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:07:59 AM PDT

dKos Reader Poll. 1/30/07 9:58 a.m. to 8:27 p.m. PT. 17,995 respondents.

           2008                          2007
           Jan30 Jan24 Jan16 Jan07 Jan02 Dec19 Dec12 Nov Oct

Obama        76    41    41   39    27    27    30    27  16
H. Clinton   11     9    11    7     7     6     8     9   9
Other         5     1     1    1     1     1     1     1   3
No F'ing Clue 6     2     2    2     2     2     4     4   5

-------Out of the race--------

Edwards       -    42    38   43    48    41    39    33  31
Kucinich      -     2     4    4     3     5     8     9   5
Dodd          -     -     -    -     4    11     2     7  21
Biden         -     -     -    -     1     2     2     2   1
Richardson    -     -     -    1     1     1     1     1   2
Gravel*       -     -     -    -     0     0     0     0   0

  • ::

Tags: straw poll, president, 2008 (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 382 comments

      •  DKos <> Real Life (13+ / 0-)

        n/t

        The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason. -Benjamin Franklin

        by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:11:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That means nearly all Edwards Deciders (14+ / 0-)

          Have chosen Obama

          Hilary's number didn't move at all but Obama's number surged...

          Incredible...  Many haven't made their decision yet though.

          •  Actually, the undecideds and (5+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            ratador, LizzyPop, Faheyman, Mardish, Hyver

            no frickin' clues have 11% - same as Hillary.  Even if they all move to Hillary, Barack cleans up around here.

            Do I dare to hope we see similar trends on Feb. 5th and beyond? :)

          •  It bears repeating. (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            science first, IntertubeGuy

            I have made this comment on here before, and it applies to all Democrats and self-proclaimed progressives.

            High euphoria in anticipation of victory often leads to deep depression when the reality of defeat sets in. I only hope the Obama supporters are mature enough to support and vote for Hillary if she does win the nomination. I know I will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. I know Kos will vote for the Democratic winner no matter who it is, too, but I am not so sure about many of the younger Kossacks who carry their hatred on their sleeves. Another Republican President is not out of the question if enough progressives sit on their hands out of spite, especially now that Ralph Nader is making noises like he will run again.

            At some point, I hope Kos and other diarists will address the subject.

            It is religion that blinds them and fear that binds them.

            by leptoo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:51:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I will not vote for HRC. (7+ / 0-)

              After the kind of campaign she and Bill have run, I cannot, will not, vote for Hillary Clinton.

              If she's the nominee, I stay home in November.

              Now.  Since I live in Alabama, it doesn't really make a difference.  This is a red state, and will remain a red state, my vote notwithstanding.

              If I lived in Ohio, or Florida, or Pennsylvania, I'd have a harder decision to make.  But in the end, I still don't think I'd be able to attach my support to this woman who is doing everything she can to win the nomination, at the expense of the Democratic Party.

              Hillary, moreso than Bill, moreso than Dubya, is the most self-serving politician I've ever seen.

              Liberal (n.): Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

              by erzeszut on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:15:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A great many people... (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Simply Agrestic

                ...feel the same way.  Record Dem turnouts all over the place.  Now, if Hillary gets the nod for the General, brace yourself for the great sucking sound.  She'll lose to McCain.

                "When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon." -Thomas Paine

                by Fogiv on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:26:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Biting off your nose (4+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Jake Nelson, phenry, Arclite, dogtracks

                to spite your face. Your reaction only emphasizes what I said about the immaturity of many Kossacks.

                It is religion that blinds them and fear that binds them.

                by leptoo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ahem. (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  genocideisnews

                  Didn't say I wouldn't support her if she were the Nom.  I would, albeit reluctantly.

                  My point is this: a great many Dems and Indys won't.  Especially centrist folks.  That's just a fact.  Nothing immature about recognizing the reality of the situation.

                  "When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon." -Thomas Paine

                  by Fogiv on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

                    I was responding to erzeszut as I was not certain from your post where you stood on the matter. Glad to see, though, that you are of a mind to support Hillary, albeit reluctantly.

                    It is religion that blinds them and fear that binds them.

                    by leptoo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:36:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Not Quite (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  cardboardurinal

                  I think if it more like biting off the nose because you have nose cancer.

                  Better to lose your nose before it spreads to your whole face.

                  If HRC gets the nod, I will not vote for her. If McCain picks a moderate as his Veep (Hagel, for instance) I would CONSIDER voting for him. He'd have a hard time selling me, but I'd consider it.

                  If he doesn't pick a moderate, there's not a chance I'd vote for him.

                  So i'd sit this election out.

                  I daresay that 4 years of McCain strikes me as better than 8 years of Hillary.

                  Sorry if you don't like it. That's what you get for supporting a candidate that 40% of this country despises before the election even begins.

                  I suggest next time you re-evaluate your choices and select a candidate that is a little less divisive.

                  •  Argue with her methods if you like (5+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Jake Nelson, billlaurelMD, phenry, Tybalt, Oxy

                    I daresay that 4 years of McCain strikes me as better than 8 years of Hillary.

                    Hillary is progressive.  McCain isn't.  Hillary is my last choice for the Dem nomination, but she's still many times better than any of the Republican nominees.

                    On the front lines of the energy crisis.
                    Peak Oil Hawaii

                    by Arclite on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:28:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I disagree (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      genocideisnews, Tempus Figits

                      I disagree.

                      The Clinton-1 administration HURT progressive causes. The Clintons don't care about the Democratic Party OR progressive causes. They care about the Clintons. And that's it.

                      Under Clinton, we gained the White House. We lost Congress. We lost the majority of state legislatures. We lost the majority of state governors. We Lost Our Way.

                      Clinton moved this party to the center so HE could be re-elected, not for the good of the party, or the good of the country.

                      I would MUCH, MUCH rather sacrifice this election cycle than sacrifice our party. I would MUCH rather have 4 years of McCain than 8 years of Clinton.

                      Now, on balance, I agree that Hillary would be better than McCain. And I would say that EIGHT years of McCain are worse than EIGHT years of hillary.

                      But if HRC wins the Nom. and the General, we're stuck with her, we can't run another candidate for 8 years.

                      Under Hillary, the DLC will take over the DNC. Howard Dean and the people and strategies who have made this party what it is over the last 4-5 years will be marginalized.

                      Hillary is a cancer upon this Democratic Party and I cannot be complicit while it metastasizes.

                      •  Absolutely (0+ / 0-)

                        Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely

                        I'd do some more but I'm running out of ink I think

                        Malco

                        The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

                        by malc19ken on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:04:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Just found some new ink.. (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          William Domingo

                          we in Britain went along with a candidate who never hid the fact that he had complete disdain for his party, and was often embarassed by the decisions it took.

                          When he became PM he broke the rules on party funding, lied to the British people and destroyed all elements of democracy in the party. He brought in a dangerous cabal of hacks, took all decisions in his own office, took the British people into Iraq, cleared off leaving mess after mess for his succesor.

                          You call him Tony Blair. I call him Tony B Liar. I left the Labour party after 39 years membership and few of my friends would describe me as immature.

                          Beware party blindness; it creeps up on you.

                          Malcolm

                          The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

                          by malc19ken on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:12:02 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  A vote for McCain is a vote for GWBush (0+ / 0-)

                        Straw man argument:

                        Clinton moved this party to the center so HE could be re-elected, not for the good of the party, or the good of the country.

                        Hillary!=Bill
                        They are not twins.  I heard recently for example that Hillary opposed NAFTA during the runnup to Bill signing it.

                        The Clinton-1 administration HURT progressive causes. The Clintons don't care about the Democratic Party OR progressive causes.

                        1. Clinton signed the Brady Bill.   Most of McCain's Senate votes have been pro gun industry.  
                        1. Clinton (with Hillary leading the way) tried to implement universal health care.  Would McCain do that?  Again, must of McCain's votes on Family issues have either been No or missed.
                        1. Clinton made great strides in promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace.  McCain sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran"
                        1. Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave act. McCain missed or voted No for SCHIP multiple times.

                        Clinton's enactment of NAFTA and DMCA were decidely unprogressive, but would McCain have voted differently?

                        I would MUCH, MUCH rather sacrifice this election cycle than sacrifice our party. I would MUCH rather have 4 years of McCain than 8 years of Clinton.

                         This is an apples and oranges comparison.  The incumbent is always in the drivers seat and always has the upper hand in getting reelected.  If you think that McCain would be a better president than Clinton, then so too would the rest of the nation, all but ensuring him two terms.

                        Under Hillary, the DLC will take over the DNC. Howard Dean and the people and strategies who have made this party what it is over the last 4-5 years will be marginalized.

                        You are probably right, sadly.  But this will happen anyway if McCain wins, as Deans efforts will be viewed as a failure if a Dem doesn't become president.

                        Under Clinton, we gained the White House. We lost Congress. We lost the majority of state legislatures. We lost the majority of state governors. We Lost Our Way.

                        Don't conflate these separate issues.  The Clintons did not cause the Dems to lose the congress.  The Dems got corrupt by spending 30 years unchallenged in congress (remember Dan Rostenkowski?).  That corruption was magnified by the emergence of the right wing noise machine which emerged at the same time.

                        On the front lines of the energy crisis.
                        Peak Oil Hawaii

                        by Arclite on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Anyone who thinks Chuck Hagel (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    billlaurelMD, phenry

                    is a moderate needs to do his homework.

                    My support for Hillary Clinton has little to do with liking her. I tend to be more pragmatist than ideologist or idolater. I can support Barack Obama just as well. I am aware of Hillary's shortcomings; however, her shortcomings pale in comparison to another 4-8 years of Republican control of the government which will continue the dismantling of our Constitution, continue the neglect of our poor and uninsured, and continue the waste of innocent lives in Iraq including the best of our own young men and women.

                    Hopefully, by November you will be able to overcome your dogmatic self-righteousness and see the benefits of having a Democrat in the White House, be it Barack or Hillary.

                    It is religion that blinds them and fear that binds them.

                    by leptoo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:35:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  so you see electability as the issue. (0+ / 0-)

                      n/t

                      Political compass: -5.50 econ, -5.79 libertarian/authoritarian

                      by billlaurelMD on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:37:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry for the cross post, but... (0+ / 0-)

                      Sorry for the cross post, but here you go:

                      I disagree.

                      The Clinton-1 administration HURT progressive causes. The Clintons don't care about the Democratic Party OR progressive causes. They care about the Clintons. And that's it.

                      Under Clinton, we gained the White House. We lost Congress. We lost the majority of state legislatures. We lost the majority of state governors. We Lost Our Way.

                      Clinton moved this party to the center so HE could be re-elected, not for the good of the party, or the good of the country.

                      I would MUCH, MUCH rather sacrifice this election cycle than sacrifice our party. I would MUCH rather have 4 years of McCain than 8 years of Clinton.

                      Now, on balance, I agree that Hillary would be better than McCain. And I would say that EIGHT years of McCain are worse than EIGHT years of hillary.

                      But if HRC wins the Nom. and the General, we're stuck with her, we can't run another candidate for 8 years.

                      Under Hillary, the DLC will take over the DNC. Howard Dean and the people and strategies who have made this party what it is over the last 4-5 years will be marginalized.

                      Hillary is a cancer upon this Democratic Party and I cannot be complicit while it metastasizes.

                      •  Very weak arguement (0+ / 0-)

                        for keeping the Republicans in office.

                        You are worried about the Democratic Party (DNC) if Hillary is elected? What good is the party if it is out of power? What makes you think the party will not disintegrate/splinter if it loses what should be a gimme election? Howard Dean, who I think is a great progressive, will be out on his ear. The party will be a shambles. The progressives of the party will get the lions share of the blame for the flame out. "Woe is me" will be the Democratic mantra. Get real. It is win this election or kiss the Democratic Party goodbye.

                        It is religion that blinds them and fear that binds them.

                        by leptoo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:03:14 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  What a Joke (0+ / 0-)

                          You'd GIVE UP our own idealogy in order to prevent the Republicans from carrying out their own?

                          So, you'd vote for ANYBODY that wraps themselves in the mantle of the Democratic Party if they become the nominee?

                          Why? What point is there in voting for a democrat if they're a DINO? What point is there in voting Democrat AT ALL if the party no longer stands for its principles?

                          This isn't a weak argument: Under Clinton-1, the clintons threw the Dem party under the bus so they could pursue their own power.

                          I'd much rather keep the Governors, Legislatures, House, and Senate and lose the white house, than the opposite.

                          I'm truly sorry that you have no principles that you feel are worth taking a stand for. Perhaps some day you will.

                          •  I believe you are a little confused. (0+ / 0-)

                            Shaneh said:
                            "I would MUCH, MUCH rather sacrifice this election cycle than sacrifice our party. I would MUCH rather have 4 years of McCain than 8 years of Clinton."

                            As you can see, it was you, not I, who expressed concern for the future of the Democratic Party, the DNC, Howard Dean, etc. I was merely pointing out that your proposed actions would assure the demise of the Democratic Party.

                            As for keeping the House and Senate they will be tied directly to the Presidential election. People who pull the lever for a Republican President are just as likely to pull it for a Republican Congressman and Senator.

                            Although I never said I would vote for any Democrat, I believe I probably would, though, vote for any Democrat over any of the Republican contenders. I do not apologize for being a Democrat.

                            I am sorry for your unrelenting anger. It cannot be very pleasant being so insecure and uncertain. Constantly having to rationalize one's errors in judgment can do that.

                            It is religion that blinds them and fear that binds them.

                            by leptoo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:53:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  you think Hillary would start a war (0+ / 0-)

                to boost her second term prospects?  C'mon.

                Political compass: -5.50 econ, -5.79 libertarian/authoritarian

                by billlaurelMD on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:38:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I'm 1000% for Obama (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                jiminy

                I donated to him the day he announced and have a dozen times since then (and I'm a poor school teacher).  I've volunteered and am the Obama chair for my precinct in Tuesday's CO caucus.  And I feel utterly betrayed by what the Clintons have pulled since Iowa.

                Having said that, I will, without hesitation, support Hillary in November if she gets the nomination.  Compared to McCain (or any other Republican) the policy differences between Obama and Clinton are insignificant.  For all my differences with Hillary, I do truly believe that she'll fight for universal health care and wind down our commitment in Iraq.

                Don't get me wrong: Obama would be much better.  But I will support Hillary.

                "I may have fucked my life up flatter than hammered shit, but I stand here before you today beholden to no human cocksucker."

                by John R on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:57:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I will only vote for her (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              NY John, BOBAUBIN com

              I will only vote for her if polls indicate a close race and there's no third party candidate more liberal than her.

            •  In Texas, my vote won't count (3+ / 0-)

              Whether or not she gets my vote, as a Texan, doesn't matter... she won't win this state, no chance in hell.

              It's my money, my volunteering, my passionate support that she'll miss... and no, she'll never EVER get that from me...

              What have I done today for barack?

              I created a Viral Chain Email and sent it to about 8000 Obama People to send Viral

              I Messaged every single person on myspace page with targeted Barack Info

              I donated $100 and then Pledged matching donations of $25 x 3 to make a total of 4 Donations = $175 just Today

              And this weekend, I'm bringing voter registration forms to sign up all of my latino friends at the super bowl party, most who aren't registered, but all of whom I can convince to vote for Barack...

              Hillary, she's lost my faith and my hard work... it's people like me that count in the end, and while she'll get my vote, she won't get my hope, sweat and tears.

            •  If HRC gets the nomination... (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              jiminy, malc19ken

              ...my focus will shift from the presidential race to Senate and House races.  I can't predict how I'll feel in 9 months.  

        •  DKos IS real life. (10+ / 0-)

          A very small cross-section of real life, to be sure, but you can't deny that these are real gains in support for Obama, even if it's in a small, somewhat irrelevant sphere.

        •  Greater than AND less than real life (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          HairyTrueMan, DJShay, Mardish

          Yep, that's Dkos! :-)

        •  ain't that the truth! (0+ / 0-)

          but what would you rather have? dkos or real life?

          Many observers believe Fidel Castro will either be replaced by his brother Raul, or by his idiot son, Fidel W. Castro.

          by DanFreeman on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:33:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  In "real life" (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          malc19ken, psnyder, BYw

          Edwards had no message. On DKos his message was heard and resonated.

          McCain '08 - Hope Less!

          by kitebro on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:35:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This IS Real Life! (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          malc19ken

          We are Progressives. This is the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party!"
           We now fall 7 to 1 in the campaign that's left, i.e., Obama vs. Clinton, and that's before the dust settles on the traumatic events (for many of us) that just happened yesterday.
           And as Progressives, we have our eyes wide open (well, most of us do), we take this stuff seriously, and we VOTE! And not only do we vote, we contribute, many of us work for our candidates, and we speak with others, (some of us even effectively!)
           So yes, I would say DKos is Real Life, just a slice perhaps, but a nice-sized (and growing) slice.
           

          "We the People of the United States..." -U.S.Constitution

          by elwior on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:50:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  re: DKos <> Real Life... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          HairyTrueMan

          ...DKos may be real life for you, but my "real life" consists of one family member telling me Obama is a Muslim (that lie has really caught on with a certain segment of white America) & another family member who watches Fox Noise constantly.

          Last but not least, "You are going to vote for a black?"

          Such is my real life.

          I come to DKos in order to escape my real life, not confirm it.

          •  The statement is true for your case (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            wyvern

            Algebraic notation:

            < less than
            > greater than
            <> less than or greater than but not equal to.

            You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. -- Abbie Hoffman

            by frostyinPA on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:06:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  My real life... (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            malc19ken, wyvern

            Lifelong friend says Obama is a Muslim because he has purple lips.

            Girlfriend is voting for Hillary because she's a woman.

            Mother won't vote for a candidate who has the same name as a former president.

            Co-worker is voting for Hillary because he wants to see Bill Clinton as the First Lady, and because he thinks Bubba will play with the help again. (seriously)

            Brother is supporting Obama because he won't vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq War.

            It's a strange country we live in.

            The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason. -Benjamin Franklin

            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:10:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  No. (0+ / 0-)

            But it is a part of real life.

          John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

          by redrelic17 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:29:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  To their credit... (9+ / 0-)

        they continue on even though they are greatly outnumbered here.

        Can't discount their support for their candidate because of a few bad apples, methinks.

        ::::

        •  Also shows (14+ / 0-)

          That as important as we are in this community, we don't necessarily reflect the views of the party rank and file at-large. We may often be at the vanguard of public opinion, but aren't necessarily representative.

          •  hillary is the entrenched power (4+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            apdva, mconvente, Faheyman, DanFreeman

            Dkos is for getting rid of the old guard.

            "Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom" - Barack Obama

            by pacified on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:27:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  like Kennedy, Kerry, Brooks and Broder (0+ / 0-)

            •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

              I think she is a committed progressive who has fought for 35 years for change.  And that Obama's rhetoric is boxing him into a position where it'll be harder to deliver change without destroying his image as a consensus builder.

              But it's obvious that I'm in the minority and I respect that.

              •  has fought for 35 years for change???? (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                cardboardurinal

                This means nothing. Literally, nothing. You run on record and decision making abilities. When you show poor decision making abilities (inability to make the right decision, inflexibility in the face of a bad decision) you have to run on record. Unfortunately Senator Clintons senatorial experience is no more impressive than Senator Obamas, and she totally screwed up health care.

                Does that sound anything like she has fought 35 years for change.

                Of course not, but you're not thinking about facts. You are thinking using her talking points. Unplug...you can do it.

                •  Did anyone here see the Wal-Mart tape? (3+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  malc19ken, cardboardurinal, Fogiv

                  How hard was she working against Wal-Mart's Union-busting practices when she SAT ON THE BOARD???
                   How hard did she work to prevent the invasion of a sovereign Nation when she SAT IN THE SENATE???
                   Union-busting and starting illegal wars is NOT the kind of "BRINGING ABOUT CHANGE" which I am, and most people at this PROGRESSIVE site are looking for!
                   And the capitalizations are because this line, i.e. Hillary's bullshit about 35 years of experience, REALLY pisses me off!

                  "We the People of the United States..." -U.S.Constitution

                  by elwior on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:17:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Experience? (3+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    malc19ken, BOBAUBIN com, Hyver

                    My girlfriend has been a project engineer for an electrical contractor for the last 4 years.  My Dad taught public high school for 33 years, and my Mom has been a Registered Nurse for 30.

                    By extension, I have 67 years experience providing health care education to electricians.

                    "When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon." -Thomas Paine

                    by Fogiv on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:33:09 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  "35 years of change"? (0+ / 0-)

                And some wonder why the term "Hillbot" exists.

                It's the 50-state strategy, stupid.

                by SonicT on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:08:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Do the rank and file have views? (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            BOBAUBIN com, knicely

            Do you think the majority have "reasons" for the candidates they choose? I think many are acting in an almost robotic way, they've been told for a good couple of years now that HRC will be our nominee and they are dutifully voting their part.

            Proud Sponsor of Hope '08
            My Political (and moral) Compass: -9.00, -8.72

            by bmozaffari on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:34:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Superribbie

              The majority of Hillary supporters have reasons for their support just as you have reasons for your Obama support.

              But go tell my grandmother that her devotion to Hillary Clinton is because she is acting like a robot and unthinking.  That'll work out well for you.

              For what it's worth, one could just as easily say that the voters are being told great things about Obama (and terrible things about Clinton, just as they have for 16 years) so they are just roboticallly going with the momentum and the hype. (I don't think it'd be true but it'd be as childish and disrespectful as your question).

              •  Yea right (0+ / 0-)

                I bet your grandmother couldn't list three Hillary Clinton policies as stated on her webpage. No offense, but most Americans either vote their identity or their gut. Few (I'd guess less than 10% have every read their party's platform) and even less (below 5% (still guessing) have read the candidates stated policies or even watched all of the debates).

                You grandma can fight me tooth and nail that she wants Hillary to win. That doesn't mean that she would have a good reason.

                •  You'd lose that bet (0+ / 0-)

                  She knows a lot about Hillary.  She's been around 89 years and can teach all of us a lot about politics. (And at age 89 has an awful lot of time to spend following this stuff and learning about the candidates).

                  But are you saying that the Obama people don't have reasons, either?  Or that just the Clinton folks don't have reasons?

              •  My grandmother passed away 20+ years ago (0+ / 0-)

                But I guess I agree on the broader point that she would have been more likely to vote for Clinton. I know she wouldn't appreciate the comment. I've also done phone-banking and have politely tried to speak issues with many 70+ y.o. ladies, to no avail. Not generalizing, but it's true for many.

                Proud Sponsor of Hope '08
                My Political (and moral) Compass: -9.00, -8.72

                by bmozaffari on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:18:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I could not agree more (0+ / 0-)

              Real time has a segment where they ask people why they are voting. It's great. People don't have any clue.
              I am really sad to say, but when it comes to governing and democracy most modern Americans are idiots. Our founding fathers would be ashamed. We conduct ourselves so basely.

              •  How's the view from up there? (0+ / 0-)

                From your lofty peak of all-mighty wisdom...

                This attitude pisses me off.

                Also, there is little evidence (actually, none at all) that previous generations of American voters were better informed or more discriminating in how they voted than your fellow citizens of today. If most of the voters now are idiots, so were the people who voted for Washington.

                There was no such thing as an "objective media" prior to the 1950s. American newspapers were overtly, publicly partisan, and not just on the editorial page... which most of them didn't have... because it would have been redundant.

                Few Americans had more than an elementary education, although the literacy rate in the 1850s was the second or third highest in the world.

                The level of political discourse wasn't any higher then than it is now. "Tippecanoe and Tyler, too?" Please.

                Not everyone who was voting at the turn of the 18th Century was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson's incredible genius would stand him as high today, relative to his countrymen, as it did then. And that doesn't say anything more about us than it does about them.

                Politics won't change until people do.

                I'm not going to live that long.

                --Shannon

                •  educaton (0+ / 0-)

                  Someone sent a memo of the test an eighth grade student had to pass to graduate back in the old days.  A  high school grad now could not match his eductation then, and I doubt many college students could

                  •  This is completely untrue. (0+ / 0-)

                    Actually a book recently came out which after year of research and study came to the exact opposite conclusion and found that we are much smarter now. Your anectdotal evidence is laughable and hoaxy much like the President I'm sure you claim to detest.

                •  HAHAHA- Jefferson (0+ / 0-)

                  Funny you should mention Jefferson. He once said, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used agaisnt unintelligible propositions."

                  How's that for your humility.

                  Be honest American citizens do not pride themselves in being intelligent. It's looked down upon. You act as if I am stating something that isn't true. People are uninformed. That's not just kids, that's old people, the religious citizenry, etc.

                  Jefferson was on my side. We live in trying times where Bill O'Reilly (an utter bafoon) shouts down Senators on TV as if he has any business doing so.

                  WAKE UP.

                  Important to note that people did vote for Thomas Jefferson even though, like me he had the ability to scorn the ignorant.

                  Humanity is not a position up there where only the most intelligent sit and ponder righteousness. IT'S WHAT WE ARE ALL EXPECTED TO DO AS A SPECIES. Some people are beginning to fall well below standards (again not just young people).

                  Sorry if I'm being to real for you, just taking the advice of one of our greatest founding father. I'm sure your apathy posing as empathy comes from...oh yea, not America.

                •  P.S. (0+ / 0-)

                  The argument you put forth in your post is pathetic. Your endless, senseless tirade just provides further evidence that America does not value intelligence or thoughtful citizenship. You prove my point for me.

                  Is your point that we shouldn't value intelligence? Stop defending ignorance for no reason other than to seem as if you are easy to get along with. The other side uses your naivety to keep the truly ignorant and sad people in this country just the way you are. You are holding America back.

                  I'm a progressive with conviction, not one who is a progressive because they are afraid of action. Which are you?

        •  thanks! I'll keep on trucking (10+ / 0-)

          even with these odds, but after a nominee is decided ill still be here backing whoever that person is!

        •  Go Clinton! (8+ / 0-)

          I don't mind the debate on here. I just get bothered when some get down right nasty.

          ;)

          "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

          by Wynter on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:17:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I AM a Hillary supporter. (12+ / 0-)

        That's why these results aren't suprising in this, the DKos Obamasphere.

        I keep moving to be stable. Free to wander, free to roam. - Peter Gabriel

        by wandering i on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:13:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it could be the DLC connection (23+ / 0-)

          that Hillary has even more so than Hillary herself.

          For instance, I do not trust the Clintons. I trusted them once but no more. But the DLC connectios to the more centrist wing of the party bothers me. I fear the Clintons in the WH will do a lot to take the party back to the center and the work of Howard Dean and other progressives will be pushed aside for the likes of Terry McAwful type politics.

          Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

          by wishingwell on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:17:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bingo (7+ / 0-)

            The DLC is poison to progressives.

            John McCain loves to suck on sausage with Lindsey Graham.

            by The Dead Man on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:26:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  agreed (4+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              jiminy, psnyder, Cyber Kat, Faheyman

              and I hate to go back to fighting all the old battles. I am sure Hillary would be a good President. I just am very leery about Bill's influence plus who will be in her cabinent, how she will steer the course of the party, if the DLC will overrun the DNC..where will the Howard Dean 50 state strategy go...and so on.

              Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

              by wishingwell on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:30:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Don't trust your assumptions. (0+ / 0-)

            Trust her record. View it here.

            This site's conclusion, (in their own words), based on her record:

            Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal.

            I keep moving to be stable. Free to wander, free to roam. - Peter Gabriel

            by wandering i on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:27:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I would have agreed with you until Bill (6+ / 0-)

              gave me a case of deja vu with the 90s talking points and I see them now as a dual presidency..and I guess for me, a matter of trust. I will vote for her if she is the nominee, though. But I will not be thrilled.

              Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

              by wishingwell on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:31:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Kyl Lieberman (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Cyber Kat

              IWR ...are not hard core liberal to me.

              Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

              by wishingwell on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:32:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Kyl Lieberman designated the (0+ / 0-)

                Iran Revolutionary Guard Qods force as a terrorist group. For your information, they ARE involved in terrorist activites.

                From GlobalSecurity.org:

                The Qods (Jerusalem) Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is responsible for extraterritorial operations, including terrorist operations. A primary focus for the Qods Force is training Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. Currently, the Qods Force conducts training activities in Iran and in Sudan.

                I keep moving to be stable. Free to wander, free to roam. - Peter Gabriel

                by wandering i on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:54:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That is a relevant fact. (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  wishingwell

                  However, another relevant fact is that the Deciderer and Warmonger-in-Chief is still in the White House and has a record of taking such pronouncements as adequate for war, which HRC knows full well.

                  "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

                  by psnyder on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:03:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Which is why Hillary joined (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    psnyder

                    Jim Webb and co-sponsored legislation prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

                    Link here.

                    Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that she is co-sponsoring legislation introduced by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization (S. 759).

                    I keep moving to be stable. Free to wander, free to roam. - Peter Gabriel

                    by wandering i on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:11:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And I'm sure that if that passes, (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      wishingwell

                      Bush will sign it.

                      "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

                      by psnyder on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:21:08 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If it's attached to a must-pass (0+ / 0-)

                        bill, he wouldn't have much choice.

                        But in your mind we shouldn't call a terrorist group what it is because Bush might attack them. Not to mention the Qods force is part of Iran's state military, but that doesn't matter. And as if Bush couldn't use a million other excuses to attack Iran if he really wanted to, which I'm pretty convinced that he doesn't. He's got his hands full with Afghanistan and Iraq.

                        This wasn't an authorization for war against Iran, it was a resolution calling out the terrorist activities of a dangerous group that was fomenting extremism and terrorist activities.

                        Besides, it's now almost six months after the vote, yet no peep about war with Iran. Hmmmm.

                        I keep moving to be stable. Free to wander, free to roam. - Peter Gabriel

                        by wandering i on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:40:35 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Any Democrat (0+ / 0-)

              would be wise to use her in their administration.  Leadership means bringing people together and for me, she is far too polarizing a figure to accompish anything in the top spot.

            •  That is all well and good (0+ / 0-)

              But I only go by what people do and the Clintons have been outright lying.  It is hard to know what they will actually do.  At a minimum, they are so polarizing as to not be able to get anything done.

            •  HRC & BHO "hard core liberals" not progressives (0+ / 0-)

              Both Clinton and Obama are "hard core liberals". Neither one is a true progressive.

              What does that mean? As a rule of thumb:

              a liberal is someone who wants to have incremental changes with a little more liberal policies than than are currently held in order to better the human condition for those found worthy

              while

              a progressive is someone who says progress must be aimed at big changes not little changes so that the human condition will be made better for the most people simply becasue they are human.

              As a practical matter this means that liberals can

              - support the death penalty (progressives don't).

              - support invasions of war without congressional declaration of war authority if the president has good reasons (both Clinton and Obama believe this, they only differed on whether there were good reasons)(progressives believe the Constitution requires a declaration of war).

              - support for profit health care that makes corporations controlling the industry rich (progressives don't support fro profit plans and instead support nonprofit health care as a human right to be protected by society).

              - support weapons of mass destruction (US nuclear arsenal) and anti-personal weapons such as land mines, cluster bombs, and Uranium munitions, (progressives can't support these weapons because they are inhumane weapons cince they target civilians).

              - support civil unions while opposing same-sex marriage (progressives see marriage between 2 people as a civil right in a civil society and not something to be determined by religion).

              - support suport the two-party hegemony and duolopy of politics and oppose small parties (progressives won't begrudge or oppose small parties because political freedom is a fundamental human right).

              I could go on.  If you want to see if you are a liberal or a progressive, then dcheck off this list and see if you can support what the liberals support or not. If you can't support 4 out of six of these positions supported by liberals then you too are a progressive. If like Obama and Clinton you suuport these issues then you too can be a "hard core liberal"

              "The United States will always do the right thing, after trying all the other options." ~ Winston Churchill

              by Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  dlc (0+ / 0-)

            but we have dkos, move-on, firelake dog, huffington post etc to keep us informed  and fight that eventuality, should it be attempted.

        •  Hillary obscenely continues to blame Iraq. (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          peace voter, Faheyman

          Hillary Clinton continues to blame the Iraqis for not being able to function under occupation. She said in terms amounting to political obscenity that when she is president Iraq won't get the "blank check" that Bush has given it.

          That is totally outrageous. Iraq hes gotten nothing like a blank check. From the first days of invasion and occupation and the Coalitional Authority the US has made demands and prevented Iraqis from self rule and reconstruction.

          Clinton is once again making talking points that ignore the humanity of the Iraqi people and treating them as second-class persons in the world.

          I'd like to see how Clinton functioned in the Senate if the USA was under occupation and a similar percentage of people were found dead every day on the streets of the US. Would she call the occupier's "aid" a "blank check".

          "The United States will always do the right thing, after trying all the other options." ~ Winston Churchill

          by Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        TeresaInSammamishWA, Faheyman, rigso

        I'm about to formally climb on the Clinton train, and I will keep it real right here - respectfully to the majority of course.  

        And if Obama pulls this out, I'll happily climb aboard that train too.

        "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one." - Friedrich Nietzsche

        by ActivatedbyBush on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:20:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No wonder the Hillary supporters (0+ / 0-)

        such as myself, post fewer comments here. With Edwards gone DK has become the All Obama Echo Chamber. You probably are deluding yourself that 76% of the population support your guy. Prepare for a rude awakening, perhaps February 5, perhaps November 4. No matter what the result the primary won't end next Tuesday. It will continue thru the convention. A split Democratic party will lose in the fall to the Republicans.

    •  NPR sez Edwards does well among conservatives (8+ / 0-)

      Kossacks may be a poor sample of the typical Edwards supporter.