Poll: Obama Takes 4 Point Lead Over Hillary In Iowa
By Logan Murphy Monday Nov 19, 2007 9:37am
Via The Washington Post:
The top three Democratic presidential contenders remain locked in a close battle in Iowa, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) seeing her advantages diminish on key issues, including the questions of experience and which candidate is best prepared to handle the war in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) draws support from 30 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, compared with 26 percent for Clinton and 22 percent for former senator John Edwards (N.C.). New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson received 11 percent. The results are only marginally different from a Post-ABC poll in late July, but in a state likely to set the tone for the rest of the nominating process, there are significant signs of progress for Obama -- and harbingers of concern for Clinton. Read on...
While the MSM has been trying their hardest to choose our next president, the people on the ground in key primary states like Iowa provide a much different picture of the race for the nomination.
Login or Register to post comments.
Obama aint Kucinich, but it's a heck of a lot better than Hillary.
I'm really sick of the MSM forcing Clinton, Obama and Edwards down my throat. I'm going with Kucinich.
Yay! The media Moguls like Obama better!
Now if we can just get honest voting machines the nation may survive.
anyone who 'believes' in any of the corporate medias polls about anything should bend over, pants down, hands to ankles, and scream next .......... as ever the corporate/ repiglican media is trying to manipulate the 'news' and perceptions relative to the underlying agenda of the corporations themselves
Same with me, going for Kucinich.
IgnoranceIsNotBliss @ 2:
===========
Exactly! I refuse to cast a vote for Clinton and do the Right Wing's bidding. GOPers run all US media, and they have an extraordinarily strong ability to shape more weakly minded Americans' opinions. I don't have a weak mind; I see right through the choreographed song-n-dance the Powers That Be are putting on for us. If they have their way they'll place Hillary in office to act as a puppet, just like Bush. It's definitely a tangled web...
Kucinich '08!!!
I'm wondering if Obama got a boost from the way he handled this Novak bullshit. He got atta boys from me for refusing to fight dirty. I'm so sick of the pissing match type of campaign.
So the MSM Polls are in, and this is who this article wants for President:
Clinton: 23 mentions
Obama: 17 mentions
Edwards: 10 mentions
Richardson: 6 mentions
Dodd: 1 mentions
Biden: 1 mentions
Gravel: 0 mentions
Kucinich: 0 mentions
don't be a pussy, vote for kooch.
it's the corporatocracy's worst nightmare.
Dear Hillary,
stop employing wankers like Mark Penn and Michael O'Hanlon
Here at the University of Chicago, there's a movement to get students to travel to Iowa over their Thanksgiving break to go canvassing for Obama, and I'm going to assume that this will turn into a "sacrifice part of you holiday break to caucus for Obama" movement. I'll wager U of C isn't the only University at which this is happening...
Obama sure beats Hillary, but I'm still going with Kucinich.
My Blue Dog can whup your Blue Dog.
Obama needs to stay away from a "Howard Dean moment" if he is going to stay productive on his campaign. Good to see the grass roots producing some fruit. Go OBAMA!
Kucinich.
Obama would be a great face for the U.S. Imagine being able to show the world that we can fix our mistakes and we're not a bunch of stupid, racist assholes.
He's my 2nd-favorite MSM-approved candidate (if you count Edwards). Have you seen the Dennis for President t-shirts on the DK website? They're lovely.
Hey, Hill, if you wanna win, don't flip-flop like Dubya.
This is enlightening ... from democracynow.org:
Debates Ignores Questions About Presidential Power and Civil Liberties
A new study by the watchdog group Media Matters has found that Democratic and Republican candidates have been asked few questions about their views on executive power, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, or other civil liberties concerns during the first 17 presidential debates. According to Media Matters there has been only one question about wiretapping. Not a single question about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or renditions. The words "habeas corpus" have not once been spoken by a debate moderator. Candidates have also not been asked about whether telecoms should be granted immunity over their role in domestic spying. Last week's debate ended with Senator Hillary Clinton being asked whether she preferred diamonds or pearls. The question was asked by a UNLV student who has since said that she was forced by CNN to ask that question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
Cheney @ 13:
Ayuppers! Meeee too!
Bummer Poll: Clinton would lose to Giuliani in Florida.
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071120/NEWS01/7...
And a ray of hope shines through!
Kucinich ‘08!!!
Watch how the MSM tries to spin this one. Early on there was a poll where Obama beat all the Republicans but Giuliani -- and the difference between him and Giuliani was one point. That was of course well within the margin of error for the poll (6 points IIRC.) One talking head spun that as "well, it's within the margin of error but Giuliani still beats him!" (In that poll Clinton lost to all the Republican frontrunners.)
Now today it is all about how a four point lead over Clinton "is within the margin of error, of course" and how the race in Iowa is a "statistical tie." Watch for "Iowa really doesn't matter", "it is too early for the polls to mean anything", "polling Iowa is very difficult" and "this poll is an outlier" to come next.
So it's still a race? It was so nice of the MSM to let us know that. The best part of this news, is that the Hillarites will be scrambling to further justify their support.
OT but seasonal. Bush was just in the Rose Garden pardoning a turkey for Thanksgiving. When bush started to speak the turkey began to gobble. It did it so much he had to stop and wait for it to be silent. I think the turkey was saying he would rather be someones meal on Thursday rather than be there in the company of bush.
These so called "debates" are useless until someone who isn't a "news person" asks the questions. Right now the debates are more about ratings than they are about substance.
That can't be right. My TV keeps saying Hillary will be the nominee.
Ok, I love Kucinich too, and I will vote for him in my primary, but if I really don't want Hillary to get the nomination. Therefore, I'm really happy about Obama
Will someone please give us some real candidates to choose from? On either side? If these corporate bought and paid for "candidates/mouthpieces" are the best we have to choose from nothing will ever change. I favor Kucinich but the MSM won't give him a half second of attention so he's dead in the water. What we need is some serious third parties to stir things up. Recent attempts (Nader, Perot, etc) have been a little too "out there" to be taken seriously by the media and public at large.
This is all very disheartening.
What's really going to be funny is if Ron Paul pulls some good numbers in the primaries. The news readers are going to wet their pants. That would make the repub race interesting.
Most of his supporters are young people who have no landlines so they aren't being polled. Could be some surprises lurking.
Some of the on-the-ground press do not exhibit the same Clinton fawning that certain editorial pages are prone to (I'm looking at you, Washington Post.) It sounds like she is really pissing some of them off.
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/11/19/covering-t...
(Read the whole thing, it is funny.)
the polls are shite. they are there to generate a narrative. an authentic poll would show kucinich in the lead. he represents what we asked for in the 2006 elections.
The question is: Will a 4% boost translate into 4% of primary voters?
A little-noticed anti-terrorism bill quietly making its through Congress is raising fears of a new affront on activism and constitutional rights. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in an overwhelming 400 to six House vote last month. Critics say it could herald a new government crackdown on dissident activity and infiltration of universities under the guise of fighting terrorism. The bill would establish two government-appointed bodies to study, monitor and propose ways of curbing what it calls homegrown terrorism and extremism in the United States. The first body, a National Commission, would convene for eighteen months. A university-based "Center for Excellence" would follow, bringing together academic specialists to recommend laws and other measures.
Critics say the bill's definition of "extremism" and "terrorism" is too vague and its mandate even more broad. Under a false veil of expertise and independence, the government-appointed commissions could be used as ideological cover to push through harsher laws.
Much thanks to Nancy Pelosi for appeasing the demands of the Bush administration and the mainstream media for not reporting on it.....
All this talk of the next presidential election while the MSM ignores the present such as this bill to be jammed down the throats of Americans in our new police-military state.
I will only vote for Kucinich in 2008!!!! I am not going to be a registered Democratic voter after 2008 either. I am done with the Democratic Party which sold its great ideals from the New Deal era with that idiot Bill Clinton!
I just plain don't trust Hillary. If it were a choice between her and another repugnican and that repugnican were Ron Paul, this will be the first time I'll vote GOP. She's just to shady, condescending, polarizing, and I really believe the reason she hasn't gunned for dubya the chimp they way she should be is because she can't wait to get her mitts on all that nice new executive power he seized. Besides if the history books are going to list Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton for 20 something years, it will start to stink of monarchy up in here. Loved Bill. Arguably the best president of the late 20th century in alot of respects. But his wife is a vindictive harpy who will fake an accent for votes.
I think Obama is president material all the way though, and I really hope he finds a way to win.....
Gary @ 1:
I'm with you there! Obama was actually my first choice back in Feb. before I learned more about Dennis and his positions on the important issues.
Kucinich could be the very first Presidential Candidate contemporary Americans did not have to hold their noses while voting for.
If he gets a surge in the Primaries i think he has a great chance. Let's shove the MSM up the corporations' ass and vote Kucinich.
pissed off patricia @ 30:
Indeed...hopefully the lurking surprises ain't like "Surprise!!! You now live in a police state! Would you like fascism with that?"
pissed off patricia @ 30:
Yeah, but the people at dailykos would go crazy because they hate Ron Paul more than they hate Giuliani.
Maybe it has something to do with being a real republican.
Bill Clinton sucked as president and his wife would be far worse. They are cut from the same ideological cloth. Anyone who actually believes that the Clinton's are "liberals" need a reality check. Tell me what policies Clinton enacted which were "liberal." Clinton effectively ended the New Deal with his "welfare reform" bill which did much harm to single mothers living in poverty already. That is why I want to vomit when Bill Clinton goes around talking about "Giving." He surely did not "give" poor mothers on welfare anything but the street with their kids when he was president. Clinton executed a retarded black man down in Arkansas when he ran against Bush's old man to look "tough on crime" in the 1992 election.
The Clinton's as its been seen again and again will do or say anything to get themselves elected. Hillary already has had multiple positions regarding "illegal immigration."
Hillary is a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. Same thing with former CIA informant Bill Clinton. The Clinton's are phony Democrats and phony "liberals." Thank Bill Clinton for American jobs being shipped out of the USA. Bill Clinton extended the policies of his Republican crony George H.W. Bush when he became president like NAFTA and other free trade agreements at the same time he was booting single mothers in poverty to the streets.
Gives hope to us that think Hillary is a disaster looking for a place to happen.
I think the commenter's are missing the point, it doesn't make any difference who the front runner is. Who ever is in the lead the corporate media will try to shoot down to make a horse race between 2 or 3 at the most. Having more than 3 is to complicated for the average butt scratching TV watching consumer. They care most that every thing is not over so people pay attention. A one sided victory is bad for ratings.
Gary @ 39:
Ron Paul is something alright. Not sure what. Thankfully we will never know what kind of damage he could do as President.
The heartening thing is that the candidates are beginning to learn that they can raise gobs of money without going to the corporations. Obama has raised tens (hundreds?) of millions from small contributors like us -- he does not take PAC money. For him to be even with Clinton would have been a major accomplishment, for him to beat her is a shock. Ten or twenty years from now, that might be the real lesson from this race. When even Ron Paul gets serious money you know that something new is afoot.
A glimmer of hope. Maybe not much of a glimmer, but more than nothing.
Eric Almighty @ 17:
Checked his site but didn't see the t-shirt. I'd like to see it though. I want one without even seeing it. Kucinich IS the right person for the job!
RayC @ 42:
If people in this country can keep baseball stats in their head, follow a football player's career from college through the NFL, follow the plot line in Heroes and figure out a remote control than they can figure out politics. We are encouraged not to.
There is a huge difference and i am personally tired of hearing people putting down people. If Americans are so stupid how come they ain't all dead?
xoites defends Constitution @ 4:
If AT&T gets off the hook despite Dodd's delay and Leahy's lone voice (The witch of the west, Feinstein is on that committee, 30,333 sigs to censure her in CA) Voting machines will be a thing of the past....
future elections will be stolen Via AT&t, and that's no lie. Absolutely crucial issue.
THIS is the ball to keep our eye on.
Best candidate in my opinion is Kucinich. The rest all pander to corporate interests. Hillary = Bush lite.
Terrible @ 45:
here it is.
http://www.officialkucinichstore.us/
Terrible @ 45:
http://www.officialkucinichstore.us/
Nov. 20, 1945, 24 Nazi leaders went on trial before an international war crimes tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany. It would be a nice thing to remind democrats about as some of them continue with the chainey/LIEberman war chant. All the frontrunners have pro-war positions.
But it looks like IOWA isn't drinking the MSM koolAid or the CNN pro-Billary bias. That is a GOOD THING.
Cool. We have a race now.
Still leaning towards Hillary, because she's smarter and tougher than any of these boys, but if Obama wins the Primary, I will give him my enthusiastic support.
But, I do wonder if Edwards might be the best bet for a General Election win ...
Bush the Liar @ 48:
slight correction. She's still a corporatist warmonger. Simply more articulate and a smoother liar.
Bush the Liar @ 48:
....and just in case you've got a little time on your hands and need a little reminder about a Clinton duo in the WH can do to speed up the rush to the bottom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms4C0LPNPpI&feature=related
Thank Greg Palast
Tim @ 51:
Is a democratic party victory more important than a victory for democracy?
slicker is not smarter.
pro-war and pro-corporate is not tougher.
billary wins, the people lose.
have to agree with #2 about Dennis. Why is it that those of us that gradeated high scool seem to prefer Dennis?
Imagine having either clinton or obama as president? both have corrupt ties to the mobsters financing their campaigns. they are just like rudi jellowyanni.
the parties are totally corrupt, we have to have an independent that can win. Who will step up?
Vote Kucinich, screw them all.
for some reason the picture and the caption make this whole thing look more like a game of Jeapordy than a debate.
Bill Clinton sucked as president and his wife would be far worse.
Well, give Clinton a little credit. He did get a 'late' economic surge through that was arguably overdue and also arguable the last we Americans will see in our lifetimes. if you think about it, the Clinton boom should have happened under Reagan. But Reagan was miserable at managing the economy. Just awful. And yes, Reagan officially began the sharp re-division between the 5% percenters and the rest, but the Clinton boom put a lot of us in the middle into good white collar jobs. Right-wingers resent that and call us "Liberal Elites" today.
But yes, overall, Clinton was an enormous missed opportunity. That is, he could have been more progressive, and would have had the votes in Congress (early on), but ended-up signing bills to appease the Gingrich gang. NAFTA in 1993? Didn't have to pass it. Welfare Reform? Ditto. Three Strikes and You're Out? Ditto. Don't Ask Don't Tell was a failure (and why Clinton didn't fire Powell when Powell disobeyed was proof that Clinton had a backbone problem).
Clinton inherited the Bosnia Herzegovina War and got it to stop in 1995 (after over 3 years and 100,000 dead). GHWB didn't want to fix it. Clinton did. Clinton made us loved in Europe for a little while, especially Ireland (go figure).
Clinton was also, to the best of my knowledge, the last non-millionaire to be elected president. I think he will be the very last. Of course, he has become a millionaire since. But think about how much debt he was in with legal bills, no big source of income, and a history of failed investments. They had less than $100K in the bank. Compare that to Bush who had millions going into the Oval Office. Same with Obama, Hillary, Rudy. All millionaires.
But the bottom line remains - we cannot have another Clinton in the White House, just as we cannot have another Bush in the White House. We need a sane, trustworthy president. He or she doesn't have to be progressive. The make-up of Congress and the Court is ultimately more important that who sits in the WH. But we need a President who will obey the law, keep the office transparent, respect us, and speak proper English. If you have a criminal president, then all bets are off.
pissed off patricia @ 26:
I'm sure it's one turkey trying to outdo another.
Mr. XXXX @ 34:
Jeeeeezus!!! That's fucked up shit man!!!
I'm with ya about Kucinich and the Dems...but I don't think Bill Clinton is anywhere near idiot...I think he was onoe of the best presidents this country's ever had...Remember when we actually had a SURPLUS!?!
oldtree
What mobster's are financing Obama?
God help us if Hillary or Obama wins the nomination.
Let's just run off the cliff together.
Shall we?
Johnny2Bad @ 62:
Much better idea:
Let's run off to the voting booth and vote Kucinch.
xoites defends Constitution @ 63:
HEY! Don't EEEEVEN bring logic into this conversation! But that's my plan!
Even if their actions and policies were exactly the same (which often they so far), I would gladly take Obama. Can he motivate more African-Americans to vote? It would be interesting if that were so, and it might place a focus on all the voting corruption in black neighborhoods in the recent elections. If the presidential election is polling close, I see no reason why more voter registration-polling place tactics wouldn't happen, given how soft the legal and public response has been to well-documented law-breaking voting crimes.
pissed off patricia @ 26:
Did Bush gobble "please don't kill me" in a mocking voice?
Obama over Hillary, ... but don't get me wrong, Kucinich is the only dem I think is bumper sticker worthy.
Wow who knew Kooch had so much support on CL! That 2% of the vote he is going to pull down will really mean something! Well, probably not.
Sadly that's what will probably happen, unless the blogs really start promoting Kucinich as the people's choice.
Polls like this are meaningless - particularly in caucus states. I believe Kerry was polling at about 4% at this stage last time around. I disagree that Mr. Nouveau Pandering Rhetorical Vision is better than Hillary. Equal (though different) on stances. Worse because of inexperience. If you have to give us one of the three Iowa, please give us Edwards.
Approximately one year from the election and I'm sitting here, realizing that I'm going to be forced to go along with the circus simply to ensure that another Repub doesn't get into the White House and torch the car wreck of a country that bush has created.
I'll be casting an anti-Repub vote rather than a pro-Dem vote, as the horses in the lead are Clinton, Obama, Edwards. The last time I enthusiastically voted for anyone was Jimmy Carter. I seriously doubt Al Gore will run, but I would happily vote for him.
I think after I vote, I'll stain my middle finger purple.
Disclosure: I support Christopher Dodd.
Blue @ 70:
No to Edwards and his pouty whiny wife. Besides, how much more 'experienced' is he than Obama? I think maybe a little inexperience would do us all some good. However, I will vote Kucinich in my primary.
Edwards is the clear winner. He, as a progressive compared to clinton, did very well in a region that is decidedly conservative. The combination of strong performance with conservatives and what will clearly be a winning performance with progressives makes Edwards the man to beat.
Neither Obama nor Hillary could beat Thompson in the election, and he's not even gonna be on the ballot.
Talk about committing suicide, bye, bye, Dems.
Lynnianaa @ 69:
Dude..Wake up. You may want him but in a general he'd get slaughtered. Peoples choice? Jeez...I think need a second cup of coffee.
Preacher Boob @ 74:
You should read a few polls. 75% of this country have had it with the rights agenda.
The Truthiness Hurts @ 9:
Reverse that list! THOSE are the guys they know are the most dangerous. This HilllaryvsObama is a created distraction to make sure we're not paying attention.
Waiter, we'll take the last four please.
I am so sick of Hillary, hopefully Obama wins the nom nom nom
anon @ 73:
RIGHT...But wait, that's not what the Dems will do...They've got other ideas...'Let's put up a black junior senator'...no, no, how bout a iconically radioactive woman who has over 50% negatives...No, better yet...the most liberal guy we can find from a northern state that told Shirley McClaine felt the effects of seeing a UFO in his heart.
Whew.
Edwards as president would be like a one-slice bologna sandwich on wonderbread...repugs would bite right through him. That's how much protection we'd have.
This race is NOT between Hillary and Obababamamma, screw them both, yank em offstage.
Hillary: dangerous and avoidant Obababamamma: lightweight, boring SELLOUT, and don't forget it.
O rly? So you'd rather do nothing to help probably the only candidate who's truly honest about his intentions win? Maybe you should drink that second cup of coffee and wake up.
Lynnianaa @ 81:
Go..be free... fight the good fight. Knock yerself out.
I prefer to win...Wow, there's a concept.
Lynnianaa @ 81:
Christ man, are you CAVING????? Let's DO IT THEN! KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT!
Push push push back bloggers!
Go Obama!!!
You're the best option for our country and our party!!
Andrew
earl @ 19:
All excellent points. Hell will freeze over before a CNN or MSNBC commentator asks a candidate if the telcos. should receive retroactive immunity. The telcos. are probably the largest advertisers on their stations!!
Another question you'll never here asked, perhaps even more important, is who they'd appoint to head the FCC. The power this position wields cannot be understated. Under current head Republican Kevin Martin deregulation has gone wild. And he's planning on deregulating even more. The result...2000 AM radio stations all repeating Republican talking points ad nauseum. Whoever controls the media controls the country. Just think, 1.2 million Iraqis and 4,000 American soldiers would be alive if AM radio was returned to its rightful owners...the PUBLIC. If the airwaves were returned to the public the lies that launched this war would've fallen flat when confronted with competing opinions.
Riiigghhttt. Because we all know WINNING IS EVERYTHING.
*For the record, I already know Kucinich won't win, but I'll vote for him because he's the only one with enough fortitude to speak the truth.
Wow... Voting for something you believe in. Now there's a concept.
Johnny2bad and Anon - you guys do realize Edwards ran for president once? Lost to Kerry, was picked up by him as VP in the general election, and lost again? I like Edwards, but to say that he clearly would have a better shot to win a general election than Obama or Clinton is, well, not reality. Its based on nothing more than the perceived effect his southern white maleness would have on the race. Well, excuse me if I don't want to pander to the lowest common denominator when choosing my nominee. Especially, when that southern white gentleman hasn't been able to when one race or lead in one poll after running for president twice.
Now, I am not saying I don't like Edwards. But its hard to argue he is more electable than Obama or Clinton or has more experience than either.
Even if Obama pulls off a miracle and defeats Hillary in Iowa, he has no chance whatsoever of beating her nationally. Clinton annihilates Obama in national polling. Let's be honest folks. Hillary is Michael Jordan; Obama is Scotty Pippen.
Go Obama Go!!!! Love Kucinich and all he stands for--he would really shake things up if he were elected--and all for the better.
Clinton needs to be taken off her pedestal big time.Am sick of being told she is inevitable,just do not beleive this at all.I now find myself changing channnels when she is on and muting her voice elsewhere even on the internet. I have the same visceral sense from her that I got from Bush and Nixon-it is unbearable to listen to the lies, manipulation and obfuscation from all of them. She also has the same Bushim of projecting her shortcomings and failure on others. \
If there is justice we will have turned a corner and have more progressives ---and I can support Obama, Edwards with no problem at all--just absolutely not the Clintonistas
DL @ 88:
Dont tell me my motivations.
Kerry ran because the republicans torpedo'd Dean in Iowa. Edwards was unknown. Kerry was the weaker candidate vs Bush and Kerry lost. VP's dont play much of a role in presidential elections.
Dont attribute a 'southern white male' mentality to me.
Edwards has for decades gutted corporations for causing harm to consumers. He got rich successfully disembowling corporations. He is also right on the issues. I would prefer Kucinich, but I know this country. It is not going to elect Kucinich.
Edwards could defeat any republican opponent he might face and would - in my opinion - correct many wrongs committed over the last 7 years.
I keep reading comments all over the blogs that people want Kucinich (me too!). I've also seen him come up close to the top in blog polls. What we need to do is collaborate - get all these Kucinich people together, take a few hints out of Dean's grassroots efforts and get Kucinich's name out there.
The Ron Paul people are doing it on the R side - what's wrong with us. Think of the reactions across the country as Kucinich wins primary after primary - right out from under the front runners and right under the noses of the MSM.
hey kucinich lovers
your man proved that he is not a progressive when he stated he was for drivers licenses for illegals
what do you have to say to that???
Obama-Edwards is the ticket.
I could live with two terms of Obama, followed by two terms of Edwards. :)
To the Iowa Democrats:
Vote for the Candidate that YOU prefer. You tried the "most electable candidate" gambit last time, and the Republicans should have thanked you for making it easy for them. You are not Political Election Experts; you are conviction voters. This time; have the courage of your convictions and vote that way.
Remember when you kept saying, back in 2004, how you were going to hold your noses, and nominate Kerry. Well, you did, and look where that got you.
This time, try being a conviction voter, and leave the macro election strategy plans to the professionals.
mrogi @ 89:
She's no MJ!
If Obama wins in Iowa, it could change things dramatically. That kind of a win could really boost him in NH.
I'm all about Kucinich, but I'd vote for any of the other democratic candidates BUT Hillary!
All the democratic candidates are pretty much the same! Why is everyone splitting hairs? They all want out of Iraq, they all want universal healthcare, they all want more government spending on clean energy. I don't get all this 'candidate A is so much better then candidate B' talk. Same thing with the republican candidates, they all wanna stay in iraq, bomb iran, torture more people and spy on americans more.
And every democratic candidate beats every republican candidate in the polls too!
So I don't understand all the bickering about democratic candidates, can someone fill me in why one is supposedly so different then the other???
Good news.
Straight Shooter @ 72:
I'm with you shooter.
I've rarely voted FOR a politician but I've damn sure voted against a lot of them.
The system is totally messed up anyway. Its always a two person race by the time my state has its primary anyway. Its no wondder voter turnout is so abysmal.
Disclosure: Obama is the only candidate I've given money to so far. Also, I would not knock on doors for Hillary but I would for ANY of the others.
I hope all of these Kucinich supporters will turn out for whoever wins the dem nimination.
I love your idea about the stained middle finger but only if the dems win.
Hope
i'm for the tall redheads husband.
Serious question: How do the candidates stack up in legitimate polls that are not run by the MSM. From a grass roots perspective? I ask, because everybody I talk to (locally) has Kucinich out by a mile and Dodd # 2. The MSM appointed front runners just get derisive comments. Just wondering what the true national picture looks like.
About a week ago I tuned into NPR and they were talking about the Democratic race, one of the commentators said something about don't take the national polls all that seriously because they didn't seem to be all that much based in reality, and why not find out what the voters think. He was quickly shut out of the discussion by the rest of the talking heads. As if the views of the People were a forbidden topic. The discussion had a very strong tone of, "These are the front runners because we say they are", about it. PEr the usual, after a few minutes of listening, I concluded that NPR is no longer a legitimate instrument of journalism and turned the radio off.
Why can't you guys realize that Hillary has already been chosen as the next president and there's nothing we can do about? It's all staged to look like a democracy. Say it with me.....Hilary is our next president....Hilary is our next president. 28 years of of Bush/Clinton rule.......28 years of Bush/Clinton rule.
Liam @ 95:
Thats the best idea i heard all year.
Chris from Ohio @ 102:
Hillary has already been chosen as the next president?
Sounds good.
good
seele @ 104:
So people not having a choice sounds good to you? Hillary being picked for us?
Yeesh.
seele @ 97:
All the Democratic candidates are the same? Woah buddy, if you think that, you really should do some research. Well, I'll do it for you. http://votepeace.info/printablecomparisonchart.html
Also Kucinich 08!
how old are you kids 17 ?
kucinich has absolutely no chance, grow the hell up.
hillary is CLEARLY the best candidate.
contrary to popular perception, hillary is actually the MOST PROGRESSIVE of all the top tier candidates with the most long standing CONVICTION and EXPERIENCE.
edwards and obama are fakes, edwards came to the senate in 1998 as a very right wing senator and DID NOT support universal healthcare as late as 2004. obama does not even support universal healthcae NOW (his plan leaves 15 million uninsured). Hillary has been for universal healthcare since AT LEAST 1992 - but probably decades before that.
Hillary is the TRUE candidate of change.
that is why the right wing have spent millions of dollars and pumped out endless books demonizing Hillary for over a decade.
They fear the change a Hillary administration will bring.
Hillary is battle hardened, she knows how to play the game, she will be a two term president, delivering historic changes.
The right wing would LOVE to run against obama.
Get behind Hillary she will make you proud.
Hillary 2008 @ 108:
Hilarious post.
Gee Hillary at 108
What a way to persuade people by telling them how juvenile they are. Talk about winning friends and influencing people.
Sheesh
Good
Didn't Pat Buchanan and John McCain win these same sorts of races before the Republican party made it's final nominee?
Obama may win this round. But get nomination? Not going to happen. Hillary is smarter and the better politician.
anon @ 74:
I was looking favorably upon Edwards until I saw that he is, like Hillary, up to his neck in corporate and PAC money, and that his stance on Iraw and Iran is the straight neocon partyline. Google "John Edwards, Iran" to see some of his comments. He doesn't look so good to me anymore.
miss_kitty @ 106:
Hillary is a fine choice. And I don't understand the claim that we have no choice, sounds too conspiracy theory.
"...They fear the change a Hillary administration will bring...." - Hillary 2008 @108
The only kind of change HRC is going to bring is the kind that causes people to say, "The more things change the more they stay the same."
Hillary 2008 @ 108:
Yes and I wonder what corner this comes from ...... I agree with one of the other previous posts Bush-lite.
Ryan @ 22:
Where ? People starting to revolt yet ?
xoites defends Constitution @ 4:
How about an informed and educated population .......
Thank heavens for that: the old-guard media can't do its own job properly so why should we want it to do ours!
If you think polls have any bearing on predicting who wins the Iowa caucus, i have some nice land in Florida to sell to you.
seele @ 114:
Hey it only takes 2 people to make a conspiracy. This is DLC engineering with the help of Rupert Murdoch. I'm not at all 'fine' with anyone being chosen for me. Especially not this crop of 'candidates.'
But hey-if you don't mind having a corporate shill foisted upon you by a big political machine, I guess you and yours are sitting in the catbird seat.
:roll:
I'm going to go visit a blog for grown ups but I wanted to leave you with this thought....
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton
I intend to vote for Edwards in the primary - unless Obama closes this enough that he has a real chance of beating her - then I will vote for him.
Then I'll vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election.
*
Don @ 120:
Enjoy the 'grown ups'. Hope they're all as full of themselves as you are.
Fascinating. This story is no longer on CNN or MSNBC. It is probably buried in one of the other ledes.
How can any Democrat with an IQ above single digits support anybody else but Hillary? America has the unique opportunity to reap the benefits of a magnificent co-presidency. Bill Clinton is the most popular president ever. He enjoyed a 70% approval rating after he was impeached! The law will not allow us to re-elect Bill. However, a vote for Hillary is essentially a vote for Bill. A Hill-Billary presidential ticket is a pretty goddam attractive alternative.
Personally, I don't give a rat's patoot who the pols say are ahead when not a single primary vote has been cast. We are still a few months out, too. Please stop stories like this, it has something to do with how we ended up with John Kerry in 2004.
That's right -- a pro-war, pro-lobbiest, pro-PATRIOT act, pro-Israel politican who thinks that Bush's "War on Terror" has made us safer.
Her campaign manager was only indicted, not CONVICTED.
George
pissed off patricia @ 26:
Bring back the League of Women voters moderation of these events instead of the cable TV shows and I might just watch. Give me substance, not "boxers or briefs?" or "diamonds or pearls?"
Fanon @ 122:
You're right. I didn't intend to be condescending. Please accept my apologies.
But if you think HC represents a change you are sadly mistaken.
Debates are useless. They are nothing but staged rhetorical pissing contests. If you want to know where a candidate stands on the major issues; go to their website. Each candidate presents a detailed enumeration of their political beliefs on their webpages.
Don @ 128:
I never said she was, I actually would not like to see her as the candidate. I have just grown weary of people, when they don't agree with each other's choices, resorting to insults.
Apology accepted.
As a foreigner, I just don't get what the big deal about Iowa is. It's only one state. But everyone is hanging on for Iowa. Can you win in Iowa and then lose in the other 49 states?
Don @ 120:
Are there ANY?? Have you seen the USA, and its media lately? (See Huckabee ad.)
This is good news, a non-white president, I see that on it's own is an incredible positive for America. The "experience" factor is a load of BS, look at chimpy; he was the governer of Texas. Look what all of his experiece has achieved! From what I've seen Obama seems good fit for reasonably responsible management, young, intelligent and not hopefully not completely bought and paid for. Hell the guy can speak clearly and elegantly, what more could you ask for? I would love to have a female president I just don't want a rerun of the same two families for the next 80 years. Sorry Hill but you don't get my support unless it comes down to you and some jackass republican, and very lukewarmly then. The others may have their hearts in the race and for the job but the political juggernaut appears to be sorting them out of the running. They're all brave; who would want to inherit this Iraq mess from George W Boob?
mrogi @ 124:
You think Hillary would let Bill have any say in policy? Not a chance. Also, I haven't seen one reason any Hillary followers give as to why she would make a good president, or what positions she has that make her a good progressive.
Thank fucking Christ. A brief hope for sanity.
Hillary 2008 @ 108:
Seek professional help.
How the fuck can the wife of the president before this one be the candidate of change? How the fuck is thirty years of Bush/Clinton change? How the fuck can someone with a 10+ year old cottage industry dedicated to demonizing them win in a general election? If you think the right wing doesn't have a hard-on to run against Hillary, you're insane. They've been preparing for this since well before Bill Clinton even left office. If I get behind Hillary it's because I don't trust her enough to turn my back to her. I'd love to see a woman become President. Next time, maybe a woman who's worth a damn will be running.
Why does anyone time Iowa or New Hampshire seriously? They're hardly reflective on the national electorate, and are usually just the gadflies in elections, a status they seem proud of.
Than the election goes on as expected.
The only problem is because of their over-weighed influence, now everyone wants an earlier primary.
Paul @ 113:
Pity. He sure looks good to someone over at that right-wing Corporatist rag, The Nation. Compares him to FDR...Hmmmm.
BTW, Newman was on Thom Hartman today (about as anti-corporate as you can get,and a big J.E. fan) kicking ass for Edwards.
The real news about this story is that the MSM had a reporter on it who could actually count to four.
anon @ 77:
When the right's (sp) MSM swift boat machine gets done with either Barack or Hillary, they're gonna look like they were forcibly exiled from planet Zorba on a UFO that landed five minutes ago in the Dead Sea, Hillary for advocating forcible inoculations of new-born infants with poison, and Barack for misspelling 'ask' as 'axe', and hiring hip-hoppers to hang nooses along his parade routes and blaming them on republicans.
When they're done, 90% of the american public would vote for the lead singer of the group 'Dildo', than either one of the above.
Let’s be honest folks. Hillary is Michael Jordan;
Yeah, when he played minor league baseball for the Sox.
He got all the press, but he still sucked at the plate.
Same with Hillary, she couldn't make a principled stand if
her life depended on it. And, as when she gave Bush a
blank check for both IRAQ and IRAN, it's OUR lives that
depend on it....
Oh, and Hillary at 108?
I agree with the comment above, the outright arrogance
and smarm of Hillarys supporters make me loathe her even more.
You folks are totally obnoxious jerks, and you will drive progressive
supporters in droves away from Hillary.
My state is pretty blue, chances are, it will carry Democrat with out
my vote. Because of creeps like you, I will not be pulling the handle
for Hillary.
mrogi @ 124:
hillerys not going to change anything, shes not even a democrat !shes still a barry goldwater repig , if this pig gets the nomination and wins , we,ll all still be on here saying the same crap about her government as we do about bushes , shes not going to get us out of iraq , shes said that! shes not going to stop this lobbying crap she loves it its where she gets her money from, shes not going to get us national health care , she takes thier money , as for bill he gave us nafta and weve lost more from nafta then we ever ganed from billy boy being president, billys better off just getting his cigars soaked in some whore somewhere, maby bill could cram one up poppy bush while thier playing golf together for 50 bucks a hole, she aint getting my vote im going to vote for a real person named dennis kucinich!!!the rest can take a flying fluck at a rolling doughnut, and im going to donate to the kootch!
tyree @ 142:
You're repeating talking-points. I could barely continue to absord your response after the first line.
mrogi @ 124:
I dunno. Maybe because I'm sick to death of the Clintons.
What, mrogi...Do you have a poster of Billary on your bedroom wall?? Gunna just die if they aren't not f*cking each other in the WH again?...Gaaawd. ENOUGH already. Let's move on. Have a nice retirement, Bill. Do you your great foundation work. Happy Happy. Buh. Bye.
Though the usual anti-Clinton rhetoric (and it is indeed just that) prevails in the comments section, I think that the race is going to be interesting in the coming year and that regardless of who wins, the country will be headed in a better direction. While I obviously endorse Clinton as a woman with experience and intelligence (as opposed to blind idealism), I am taking up the position that whomever wins, America wins (in opposition to the cynical, angst-ridden and petulant 'Whomever wins, we lose!' attitude that many seem to revel in).
Johnny2Bad @ 144:
So, you're not basing your opinion on who is best, but what name--a string of letters--you are sick of hearing versus which one sounds original. Got it.
Shawnmeat @ 143:
buy a fuck book that should help you understand a hillery clinton administration , give the boy a cigar!!!
Shawnmeat @ 146:
"Who's "best"??? Paleeze.
And yes...I like these letters "best" E-D-W-A-R-D-S.
Hillary 2008 @ 108:
I've spent a lot of time pointing out her very-leftist voting record, her strong progressive stance on myriad issues, ad infinitum, but it doesn't matter all that much here. I think it's because the internet attracts mostly radicals on either side of the debate; I believe wholeheartedly that most centrists (this excludes me, obviously - I'm a sucker for the ultimately trivial online debate!) do not post in such forums because they're more easygoing than to act as though the entire universe is in peril if a Bible-thumper or a hippy is not elected.
Individuals like Kucinich, Gravel, and even Obama (I excluse Edwards because I think he is a fairly solid candidate -and in his own words, what separates him from Obama is that he's not simply singing "Kumbayah") all believe that radical, sweeping changes need to be put in place but the left hates it when neo-conservatives offer the same solution. Furthermore, a President can't simply make unilateral decisions that change the face of things like healthcare or the occupation of Iraq without the support of the House and the Senate. Sure, the current Democratic Congress is passive-aggressive and ultimately subservient to the very whims of George W. Bush, but you can bet your arse that the Republicans in Congress are going to do everything in their power to make life hard for Hillary. They did it for Bill, after all, and Hillary remembers that. She has commented on it. She has been used to this sort of tomfoolery for fifteen-plus years and she's more powerful now for it.
Johnny2Bad @ 148:
Well, saying 'I don't want Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton!' tells you nothing about the actual Clinton candidate is all. In other news, I'm actually quite the Edwards fan. My dream ticket (based solely on who's running currently) would be Clinton/Edwards. If we were to go outside of the current candidates, I'd love to see Gore run with Clinton or Edwards by his side.
But that's just me.
Login or Register to post comments.