2008: 1/30 results

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

•  No surprise there.

  by wandering i on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:08:47 AM PDT

  •  no wonder the Hillary supporters

    feel so beleagured.

    by JoeW on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:10:05 AM PDT

    •  DKos <> Real Life

      n/t

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

      •  That means nearly all Edwards Deciders

        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.

        by kubla000 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:18:17 AM PDT

        •  Actually, the undecideds and

          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? :)

          by sick of it all on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:29:03 AM PDT

          •  maybe barack will save us

            hillary wont.

            barack might not!

            by Pattern Math on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:47:00 PM PDT

        •  It bears repeating.

          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.

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

          •  I will not vote for HRC.

            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.

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

            •  A great many people...

              ...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.

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

            •  Biting off your nose

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

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

              •  Ahem.

                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.

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

                •  Actually

                  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.

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

              •  Not Quite

                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.

                by shaneh on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:54:49 AM PDT

                •  Argue with her methods if you like

                  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.

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

                  •  I disagree

                    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.

                    by shaneh on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:25:33 PM PDT

                    •  Absolutely

                      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

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

                      •  Just found some new ink..

                        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

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

                    •  A vote for McCain is a vote for GWBush

                      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.  

                      2. 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.

                      3. Clinton made great strides in promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace.  McCain sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran"

                      4. 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.

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

                •  Anyone who thinks Chuck Hagel

                  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.

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

                  •  so you see electability as the issue.

                    n/t

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

                  •  Sorry for the cross post, but...

                    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.

                    by shaneh on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:41:46 PM PDT

                    •  Very weak arguement

                      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.

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

                      •  What a Joke

                        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.

                        by shaneh on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:00:10 PM PDT

                        •  I believe you are a little confused.

                          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.

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

            •  you think Hillary would start a war

              to boost her second term prospects?  C'mon.

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

            •  I'm 1000% for Obama

              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.

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

          •  I will only vote for her

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

            by LiberalMontanan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:23:37 AM PDT

          •  In Texas, my vote won't count

            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.

            by kubla000 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM PDT

          •  If HRC gets the nomination...

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

            by NY John on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:15:56 PM PDT

      •  DKos IS real life.

        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.

        by slash196 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:20:14 AM PDT

        •  Oh, it's real life, alright.

          A large population of mostly decent people undercut by a much smaller population of idiots and assholes whose mission in life, I am convinced, is to drive me up the fucking wall.

          by phenry on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:28:21 AM PDT

          •  DKos users are overwhelmingly male, it seems

            But most Democrats are women.  I think that accounts for the big difference between this poll and the regular polls of all Democrats.  Hillary Clinton is very popular among women voters.

            by Metro Center on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM PDT

            •  They are?

              That's news to my uterus.  I assume there are stats kept that you're referring to, or is that a guess?

              by BornBlue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:48:38 AM PDT

              •  DrSteveB did some polling a couple of years back.

                DKos is approximately 2/3 male.

                by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:01:08 AM PDT

                •  Possibly a new poll might be a good idea. n/t

                  by XStryker on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:04:00 AM PDT

                  •  I think it's time for some new data.

                    But I'd be surprised if the numbers changed much.

                    by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:05:04 AM PDT

                    •  I'd be curious to see if it's changed.

                      Won't bother me if I'm here with mostly guys (nudge nudge wink wink say no more say no more).  Just interested in knowing how the demographics are represented here, generally speaking of course.

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

                •  Even adjusting for that, Hillary is crushed.

                  In Iowa and South Carolina, Obama won a majority of votes from women. But ok, let's say that as many 60% of women prefer Hillary Clinton (pretty generous, that figure). If you adjust this DK poll for 50% women rather than 1/3, and you apply 60% of those votes to Clinton, then Hillary Clinton would still only be standing at 21%.

                  Getting her ass handed to her by Barack Obama.

                  We can all see where most of the Edwards votes among the grassroots are going. To Barack Obama. Most decisively.

                  by Jackson Landers on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:09:31 AM PDT

                  •  Fine.

                    Go ahead and believe that DKos polls mean something.

                    That won't change the fact that, scientifically speaking, they don't mean diddly squat. The only thing they show is that people who visit DKos support Obama over Hillary, which I didn't need a poll to tell me.

                    by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:17:37 AM PDT

            •  You are exactly right.

              And it's not just about men and women. DKos is an internet blog, which means participants must have access to a computer and the internet. Those who are technology challenged, such as seniors and the poor, and not part of the DKos community. And those people (working class poor and senior citizens) seem to support Hillary.

              by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:04:26 AM PDT

              •  Evidence?

                Do you have any evidence to support this?  It's my feeling too, but I don't trust vague feelings.

                by Tybalt on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:27:15 PM PDT

                •  dkos

                  Folks...I am a very senior citizen and have had a computer for 20 years.  I do keep up with things...and try to influence my small sphere...I will vote for whomever the Dem nominee is..Hillary or Obama...but really I think Obama is going to be crushed Feb 5...people know HRC...they don't know Obama.

                  by flyfisher on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:44:59 PM PDT

              •  The sad thing is,

                Poor people do not vote in anything like their numbers as a percentage of population.

                Our politics would be very, very different if more poor people voted. But they don't, by and large, and so they continue to see the underside of the bus.

                I wish it weren't so. I've voted while homeless.

                --Shannon

                by Leftie Gunner on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:30:09 PM PDT

        •  I would argue the relevancy of this

          "irrelevant sphere".

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

          •  I also wonder about those who come here

            and argue that we are irrelevant.

            by elwior on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:53:40 AM PDT

          •  marx

            brothers, Duck Soup:

            Chicolini: Now I aska you one. What has a trunk, but no key, weighs 2,000 pounds and lives in a circus?
            Prosecutor: That's irrelevant.
            Chicolini: Irrelephant? Hey, that'sa that answer. There's a whole lot of irrelephants in the circus.

            by ratador on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM PDT

        •  Sure thing

          Since you are conceding they are "somewhat irrelevant," I will concede that they are "somewhat real."

          :D

          by TooFolkGR on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:07:57 AM PDT

      •  Greater than AND less than real life

        Yep, that's Dkos! :-)

        by pontechango on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:23:53 AM PDT

      •  ain't that the truth!

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

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

      •  In "real life"

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

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

        •  Real life != corporate media n/t

          by pontechango on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:50:09 AM PDT

          •  Yup!

            by kitebro on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:53:39 AM PDT

      •  This IS Real Life!

        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.
         

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

      •  re: DKos <> Real Life...

        ...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.

        by wyvern on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:58:24 AM PDT

        •  The statement is true for your case

          Algebraic notation:

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

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

        •  My real life...

          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.

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

          •  asdf

            It’s funny yet disturbing to hear reasons why people will vote for a particular candidate (not that I’m a genius on the issues).  It can make one wonder how this democracy thing is working....I suppose better than the alternatives.  

            by NY John on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:41:54 PM PDT

            •  Democracy requires an informed public.

              Sadly, most Americans are uninformed when it comes to politics.

              by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:33:20 PM PDT

      •  No.

          But it is a part of real life.

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

    •  To their credit...

      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.

      ::::

      by nowheredesign on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:11:57 AM PDT

      •  Also shows

        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.

        by dcg2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:13:59 AM PDT

        •  hillary is the entrenched power

          Dkos is for getting rid of the old guard.

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

          •  like Kennedy, Kerry, Brooks and Broder

            by Jim J on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:38:33 AM PDT

            •  Don't forget Ben Nelson

              Progressive anti-establishmeent guy that he is :)

              by dcg2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:43:10 AM PDT

          •  I disagree

            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.

            by dcg2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:42:32 AM PDT

            •  has fought for 35 years for change????

              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.

              by knicely on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:58:03 AM PDT

              •  Did anyone here see the Wal-Mart tape?

                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!

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

                •  Experience?

                  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.

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

            •  "35 years of change"?

              And some wonder why the term "Hillbot" exists.

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

        •  Do the rank and file have views?

          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.

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

          •  Yes

            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).

            by dcg2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:46:45 AM PDT

            •  Yea right

              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.

              by knicely on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:53:30 AM PDT

              •  You'd lose that bet

                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?

                by dcg2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:32:22 AM PDT

            •  My grandmother passed away 20+ years ago

              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.

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

          •  I could not agree more

            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.

            by knicely on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:50:03 AM PDT

            •  How's the view from up there?

              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

              by Leftie Gunner on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:44:15 PM PDT

              •  educaton

                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

                by flyfisher on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:04:11 PM PDT

                •  This is completely untrue.

                  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.

                  by knicely on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:21:08 PM PDT

              •  HAHAHA- Jefferson

                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.

                by knicely on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:19:22 PM PDT

              •  P.S.

                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?

                by knicely on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM PDT

      •  thanks! I'll keep on trucking

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

        by rigso on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:15:57 AM PDT

        •  Same here!

          ill still be here backing whoever that person is!

          by JoeW on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:18:29 AM PDT

        •  These odds have nothing to do w/

          the real odds my friend

          by ActivatedbyBush on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:21:04 AM PDT

          •  yes, I know, I'm just talking

            about being on DKOS, in the real world it's more like 50/50 at this time I think.

            by rigso on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:41 AM PDT

            •  Oh we are better than that

              2/3 or so on Intrade.   We've got the inside track on this one, but let's see what happens through Tuesday.   If this were the general election I'd be sweating it right now.

              by ActivatedbyBush on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:24:49 AM PDT

        •  Me, too

          I'm an Edwards supporter, not sure what I'm doing yet, but I'm definitely supporting whoever ends up being the nominee.  

          by BornBlue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM PDT

      •  Go Clinton!

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

        ;)

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

    •  I AM a Hillary supporter.

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

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

      •  it could be the DLC connection

        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.

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

        •  Bingo

          The DLC is poison to progressives.

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

          •  agreed

            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.

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

        •  Don't trust your assumptions.

          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.

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

          •  I would have agreed with you until Bill

            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.

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

          •  Kyl Lieberman

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

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

            •  Kyl Lieberman designated the

              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.

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

              •  That is a relevant fact.

                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.

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

                •  Which is why Hillary joined

                  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).

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

                  •  And I'm sure that if that passes,

                    Bush will sign it.

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

                    •  If it's attached to a must-pass

                      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.

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

                      •  but it's BAD diplomacy

                        for me it's not about what Bush would do.  It sent the WRONG signal with the tensions already escalating.

                        by mrchumchum on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:27:35 PM PDT

          •  Any Democrat

            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.

            by LauraC on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:34:30 AM PDT

          •  That is all well and good

            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.

            by dan667 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:55:58 AM PDT

          •  HRC & BHO "hard core liberals" not progressives

            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"

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

        •  dlc

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

          by flyfisher on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:08:20 PM PDT

      •  Hillary obscenely continues to blame Iraq.

        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".

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

        •  that's right

          It seems that the "blank checks" are going to Hallibuton, BlackWater and KB&R.
          
          
          ````
          peace
          
          

          by peace voter on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:36:33 AM PDT

    •  I'm not

      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.

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

    •  No wonder the Hillary supporters

      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.

      by Comte de Saint Germain on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:15:41 PM PDT

  •  NPR sez Edwards does well among conservatives

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

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

    •  Yeah, I heard that this morning

      too. Time will tell.

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

    •  Seriously?

      What was the reasoning given?  I can't see that at all.

      by bobcatgrad on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:19:20 AM PDT

      •  There are poor, down trodden conservatives to. nt

        by Grass on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:17 AM PDT