Who are you leaning towards for '08?

[WI_DEM]

Poll question: Who are you leaning towards for '08?

Now with the 2005 elections over and '06 coming up, who are you leaning towards for '08? (I think I've listed most of the people seriously considering running).

[nickyt]

1. Patrick Fitzgerald. i know i know n/t

[rosesaylavee]

2. Why do you ask?

Are you representing any of the above?

[WI_DEM]

3. no

it's just a poll. Take it or leave it

[ananda]

4. Howard Dean for President and..

.. Dennis Kucinich for Veep.

I can dream....

[unkachuck]

48. you might be right....

....I've always sensed that the Good Doctor was a true 'natural' and as such, he wouldn't be kepted from his rendezvous with destiny....stranger things have happened....2000, 2004, :)

[Rowdyboy]

5. Get ready to be repeatedly chastened by the usual cast of characters

who will tell you what you're allowed to discuss here and what you aren't. Why they bother to respond to these threads when they hate them is beyond me? Do they really think people can't think about 2008 while working primarily on 2006?

:shrug:

[WI_DEM]

7. Good point

but given posts I've seen here for Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Warner and assorted others I think it's clear that some people are already thinking of '08--and certainly many of these potential candidates are too.

[Rowdyboy]

14. Certainly they are....Hell, its ridiculous to assume that people can't

"multitask" to that extent. But, if you ever check out the 2008 threads, you'll be blasted for daring to bring up the subject.

I simply do not get why that is such a sore subject with some posters. I'm sorry, I love to speculate about 2008 and pretty much check out every thread I see on the subject. Not planning on givving it up unless the admins ban the topic and I really don't see that happening.

[BOSSHOG]

12. Roger That Rowdy

I can plan for 06 and 08 simultaneously. Does that make me a multitasker or bi-sexual? I'll vote for Clark any day, but there is about 110% chance when I step into that voting booth I'll vote for every democrat on the ballot unless it is an independent running against a republican than the Indy gets my vote. I'm hardheaded that way! Hopefully Clark ain't thinking about any personal political plans for 06, except getting more Dems elected. The General has nothing to prove to the American People and republicans sure as hell can't take about "qualifications." bush has lowered the bar so much any howdy doody carrying a bible will pick up a whole bunch of votes. I digress.

[Rowdyboy]

18. Hell, Boss, you and me are already concerned with THREE elections....

Replacing Lott in 2006, Barbour in 2007, and Bush in 2008. I'd say we were tri-sexual but your missus might not appreciate the humor. We can definitely multitask with the best of them though!

And I'm with ya on Wes. Yeah, I'll vote for pretty much whoever the party nominates but,for the love of God, please let Wes Clark be on the ticket (preferably in the lead-dog slot)

[BOSSHOG]

22. Hell let me piss somebody off

Lets talk about 2010. Three election cycles oughta have the gop in permanent minority status.

[LittleClarkie]

38. Nah, anybody can post anything as long as it follows the rules

Why, people can even post that they think such polls are silly or are way too early. Opinions, doncha know.

[Midnight Rambler]

6. I say Clark

No matter who it is though, if the Dem nominee wins, I think Clark would make an excellent Secretary of Defense. Someone who actually knows something about the military.

[serryjw]

51. What is the earliest date

he can be Sec of Def?

[LandOLincoln]

65. 2010. n/t

[nolabels]

85. If you can get past "He was in the Military"

Behind every good man is a large group of people giving the good man a good shove forward B-)

[Chipper Chat]

8. Al Gore (Our President from Jan 2001 to Jan 2005)

would get my vote.

[WI_DEM]

9. what if he doesn't run?

I agree if he does I would be inclined to support him.

[William769]

10. I want to say Wesley Clark but...

I don't think he is going to run.

[FrenchieCat]

28. I think it will depend on the level of support he receives.....

So it is more up to us than it is up to him.

What the mind shall conceive, we can achieve!

[cdb]

11. Anybody but Hillary

Or the first person with a vision, ideas, solutions and a plan to win for chrissakes...

[Mind_your_head]

17. I second that! n/t

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

41. I am an ABH dem too. nt

[OneBlueSky]

13. Al Gore . . . n/t

.

[David Dunham]

19. I agree. Al Gore in 2008.

[AtomicKitten]

30. Gore for me too.

Gore/Obama

[Uncle Joe]

64. Al Gore for me three, for that matter

as far I am concerned Al Gore can run for President and Vice President at the same time.

[last_texas_dem]

37. I like Al if he decides to run

I have a feeling he won't, but he'd be my first choice if he did. I mean, he's already been elected President; he should at least get to serve his term!

I'm basically undecided, though. I love Russ Feingold; I was campaigning for Kerry in Wisconsin last year and it was awesome getting to vote for Feingold for Senator. I'm still not certain how well he would play nationwide; much would depend on how the media "spun" his candidacy. Consider how much the media loves conservative "maverick" John McCain; now, can you really see this so-called "liberal" media giving Russ Feingold the same amount of respect/credit? I really can't. Then again, when was the last time the media didn't do all they could to destroy the Democratic Presidential candidate?

I also think John Edwards is great; he was my choice in '04 and I'd support him again. I know he gets mocked a lot (more by Democrats than Republicans it seems, which is odd 'cause he's actually a fairly liberal Democrat) but I think he's pretty much genuine and isn't putting on a show. And I like and agree with his emphasis on economic issues.

[leanin_green]

87. Al for me, too.

[BOSSHOG]

15. I HOPE GENERAL CLARK'S STAFF IS MONITORING DU

Clearly unscientific but a strong showing for the four big stars.

[Capn Sunshine]

93. well, they DO have it down to a science

mastering internet polls, I mean.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

However, in the real world, I'm pretty sure Hillary has a sizeable lead. At this stage of the game it's all about name recognition though.

[ooglymoogly]

16. w. clark and a. gore or visa versa

would be an unbeatable ticket

[TayTay]

20. Santa Claus, or maybe the Easter Bunny

He's cute. Depends on who's better on their all important revision of the gift tax. I'll keep my eye out for this.

Haven't we been polled to death on this?

It's too early. concentrate on '06

[dbackjon]

23. CLARK!

[TayTay]

25. CLAUS!

[PDittie]

24. Clark, Edwards, Warner

in that order.

[kwolf68]

26. Gore

No debate.

I also like Feingold a lot. Gore/Feingold would be A-OK with me...or you could put Clark or M.Warner on the docket with Gore...

[FrenchieCat]

27. Clark and Why.....

My Schpill.... :eyes:
Because I see that we will "desperately" need a true CIC as President in 2008. Currently we have a "play" President screwing everything up!

Because it is Foreign policies that affect Domestic policies.

Consider that even yesterday when the news should have been primarily how the Dems kicked ass, how the attacks in Jordan wiped out that news yesterday and today it's the "Bomb" alert.

Without security issues addressed forcefully, domestic issues will always take a backseat...which is what the 2004 general election proved. Voters' treasure physical safety first and foremost.

Whether we like it or not, the Republican's trump card is security (the fact that the WH can and most likely will orchestrate whatever they feel they could get away with to place security on the forefront of voters' minds right before a presidential election cannot be underestimated--a fabricated "attack" from Syria perhaps....no matter how badly they may be faring at the moment).....
http://www.alternet.org/election04/20853 /
http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2477/newsletter_info....

Additionally, considering a defense budget now increased to 490+ Billion per year; a budget filled with pork and a great source of drain on our treasury of monies that SHOULD be available for domest ic programs

Certainly, many Democrats would agree that de-funding pork in the defense budget, if offered by the right spokesman, certainly could alleviate some of our treasury woes and the fact that domestic social programs are being cut to the bone as we speak.

Candidates with a slew of domestic programs to offer and campaign on in 2008.....with no realistic approach to fund them short of increasing taxes (still not popular or appealing rethoric) is not an affective election strategy for Democrats, IMO. It allows the GOP to continue in calling us the "Tax and Spend" party. Although some small tax increases on the upper tax brackets could be seen as OK by the electorate, we would be pushing it to ask for what would really need in additional tax revenue to balance the budget, reduce the deficit, AND to fund new programs and ressurect others.

The advantage that Wes Clark has over most other potential Dem candidates is that he doesn't have to "prove" himself "tough" on national security and defense....and in fact is the one Dem that carries the kind of gravitas that would allow American voters a real conversation on Defense pork and how to trim it. There's a lot of money in that defense pork ya know!
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pi...

The Democratic trump card is domestic policies.....this is where the Dems are strong according to all polls and conventional wisdom.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=269&conte...

So if I have a choice of offering up a candidate that could moot the trump card of the opponent, or a candidate that would offer what we are known to be strong on anyways....personally, I go with strengthening our weakness as opposed to re-enforcing our already strong point. Voters want BOTH safety and good domestic policies...

In the end, it will be all about strategy....but certainly, I want to think out of the box, and having a candidate that offers new approaches to old problems is something that I believe would work more effectively now that we are in a "never to end if the GOP have their way" Terror War, putting aside the Iraq mess, and that we are now, more than ever hated by most of the world.

Wes Clark's qualifications makes him a doable and unexpected potential powerhouse and the offering of new ideas and a different strategy from all previously used by Dems.

That's my story!

Now Please.....I beg of ya! Go to my sig link and sign up to make a difference in an issue that is relevant right now today.....not in 2008! So Go! (Please?)

[demokatgurrl]

29. Although I really want Boxer

or if not her, Hillary (go ahead, go ahead, flame away), I think we need someone who has not been slimed by the repukes yet. A new face, a new name.
So I picked Warner, without enthusiasm.
Dean for SENATOR from Vermont.

[nickshepDEM]

31. Take a guess...

First and for most I want some with a proven ability to win. Win not only red states, but some of the redest counties and precincts in the country. My guy can win, he's already proven that.

After that look at his record. You can find it in the Mark Warner group under the thread "Mark Warner in a nutshell"

[johnfunk]

32. Where's Bill Richardson?

Not that I don't think we have a welath of talent for '08.

[lavenderdiva]

33. where's the Al Gore choice?

that's who I'd vote for, AGAIN...

[election_2004]

34. Someone OTHER THAN Hillary

Even if she wins the Electoral College and makes it into the White House, there is no way Democrats will have a House or Senate majority alongside a Hillary Clinton presidency come 2009.

In fact, I contend that a nomination of Hillary would cause a Democratic NET LOSS in 2008, given the negative effect it will have on Democratic congressional candidates in the red states.

[AntiCoup2K4]

35. AB-DLC

No exceptions.

[politicasista]

36. Kanye West

Actually the year 2006.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Dennis Kucinich

second choice is Russ Feingold. Dennis and Russ are untainted by IWR (they both voted against it).

I will have no problem supporting some of the others, except for Hillary or Biden, because they are PPI neoliberal imperialists.

[CatholicEdHead]

90. Same here

I voted for Feingold in this poll.

[BlueManDude]

40. Gore 08

[Robeson]

42. Bernie Sanders.

[loyalsister]

43. Reserving judgement

I'm looking for someone with health care policy experience to come out boldly with a plan for universal health care the way Howard Dean did.
I think it will probably take a governor.
Vilsac and Warner are maybes. Edwards distance from the senate and new leadership role could help him. He connects with people and he gets it in ways that I don't think Kerry ever will.
Al Gore's recent populist like activities have been interesting. Although, I can't recall him being a strong advocate for universal health care.
Overall, I want someone who isn't just there to win.

I heard a guy announce that he is running in our local district and all I could do was roll my eyes. He was just there to tell us he looks good on paper and he needs money. Why? He's a veteran, a sunday school teacher, and his platform will be- he wants to reign in Washington spending. So, in the world according to this good on paper guy he is conservative enough to be competetive enough for the local democrats to open their wallets.

I'm sick to death of that line.

I want more than "the perfect candidate on paper." I want a candidate with policies in mind that are going to improve our lives, and experience in making domestic government policy. I want a candidate who will bring our troops home. I want someone who will begin the long process ahead of us of repairing the damage that Bush has done internationally.

[democrank]

44. Wes Clark.

Proud to have him on our side.

[DainBramaged]

45. the number of "other" bothers me a lot

If that's a protest vote, we lose, because that's a BIG percent of our informal poll here. And if the "other" vote is waiting for another candidate to declare or appear, I hope we ALL get together before 2008 on ONE candidate.

And for the sake of the country I mean it.:mad:

[McLuhan]

46. Wes Clark

Clark would make an excellent President.

[leyton]

47. Lyndon LaRouche. Why'd you leave him out of the poll?

In truth, Warner or Clinton. Not sure which. Both would be great Presidents, I know I can count on Clinton to run a campaign much better than Kerry's, Gore's, or Dukakis's.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

75. LOL! Now you got it!

[NYdemocrat089]

49. Clark n/t

[DainBramaged]

50. And in the poll yesterday 41% chose Hillary

How can the members of this board ignore the public choice and NOT back her? So you would all send the country down in flames rather than vote for her in 2008 if she gets the nomination?? The public at large will not back Gore, Kerry or Edwards, so those votes ae wasted too. WE ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE HERE FOLKS.

If that is the case you should all quit here because you're no better than the powers of darkness cloaking the Corrupt Conservatives.

EGO should be left at the voting booth door.

[FormerDittoHead]

58. HUH? Where was THAT poll?

Now, are you saying there was a poll HERE, YESTERDAY which went 41% PRO Hillary? Hmmmmm....

Check these RECENT DU polls out and then tell us where you saw another Hillary here with a FAVORABLE 41% (these links exclude THIS poll with similar results)

If you're going to cite recent DU polls, here they are:

10:1 against Hillary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2230874

Only 3% pro-Hillary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2226280

58% ANTI-Hillary (from a wide field!):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2223473

[nickshepDEM]

59. No a Rasmussen national poll.

[DainBramaged]

60. What it means is that NATIONAL:LY, if you'd paid attention

We HERE are out of step. Ego never helps a political cause, as we are seeing with the Corrupt Cons.

[FormerDittoHead]

68. Care to answer the question? (Rasmussen poll goes AGAINST Hillary)

Seriously, where was that national poll giving Hillary 41%? Are you making it up?

Here's the link to the Rasmussen Reports poll cited above:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm

First off, the question Rasmussen polled asks: If Hillary runs in the **GENERAL ELECTION** in 2008... But this is an ENTIRELY different question than ANY poll I've seen asked here at DU...

I'm guessing that DU'ers would vote OVERWHELMINGLY for Hillary in the GENERAL election, but she'd have to win the PRIMARY FIRST. Do you get that?

HOWEVER, while we're on this national poll, I thought this was interesting:

"If Hillary Clinton runs for President in 2008, 29% of Americans say they would definitely vote for her. Forty percent (40%) would definitely vote against the former First Lady." (my emphasis for those not "paying attention")

So where's the 41%?

[DainBramaged]

71. Wrong poll, wrong poll, it's the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll

for Christ's sake. NOW pay attention;

conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Nov. 4-7, 2005. N=1,003 adults nationwide.

"Let me mention some people who might seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. If the next Democratic primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote: ?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?" Asked of registered voters who are Democrats/leaners, or are independents who would vote in a Democratic presidential primary.

Hillary Clinton 41
John Edwards 14
Al Gore 12
John Kerry 10
Joe Biden 5
Wesley Clark 4
Bill Richardson 3
Other (vol.) 1
None (vol.) 4
Unsure 6

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

Get this, pay attention, find ALL the polls at Polling Report and then chew my ass out. If you don't get it don't spout like the Corrupt Cons, my info was correct.
:mad::mad::mad:

[FormerDittoHead]

80. This was legit. I'm honestly surprised. VERY surprised.

Although I just don't understand your anger and defensiveness with your "get this, pay attention" / "spout" / comparison of me to the "Corrupt Cons" , etc etc crap when reasonably asked to cite your source.

If you had not ASSumed everyone could read your mind, and had your bookmarks, you would not have had to engage in your little temper tantrums.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Clark2008]

92. So less than half would vote for Hillary.

Hmmm...

It's a popularity contest at this point.

People surely know that Hillary won't flip any red states. And, if they don't, we need to educate them on this fact and the fact we have to turn a few of the red states to win, Diebold or no.

[WyLoochka]

52. Hoping Obama is in the mix

by the time the primaries roll around.

[prvet]

53. Clark n/t

[realFedUp]

54. Tom Hayden/Cindy Sheehan

howabout that for a match!

[Fleshdancer]

55. From this list, I chose Clark, but....

How these Democrats help in 2006 will greatly influence my choice for '08. I want to see all hands on deck so to speak to help in the midterm elections.

I haven't seen much of Clark lately, but I assume it's not because he hasn't been doing anything but because he just isn't getting the coverage...like most Democrats I might add. As the midterms get closer I hope to see him more and more helping out on the various campaign trails and consulting with Democratic candidates/incumbents on issues such as military and foreign policy, etc.

[Jai4WKC08]

62. Clark is out there; it's the lack of media coverage

Clark worked hard for Tim Kaine in VA and Chris Coleman in St Paul. Last August he was helping Paul Hackett in Ohio.

He has also stumped for '06 candidates and state parties all over the nation. Just yesterday he was with Bill Nelson in FL, in about 5 different locations, and one paper said they were mostly where Nelson's fundraising was lowest--I'd assume the redder areas of the state.

Moreover, Clark is working on a lot of stuff that is purposely "behind the scenes" to some extent. Meeting with the Out of Iraq Caucus, serving on the Democratic Congressional Caucus National Security Advisoty board, speaking to a bootcamp for new Congressional candidates, for example.

The media will seldom cover it, but they don't give any of our guys much attention unless it's something the Repubs can attack.

[LandOLincoln]

66. Wes is out there constantly. Don't know how he does it.

When I read his monthly schedule, or even a weekly schedule, I get so tired I have to lie down for awhile. He is Perpetual Motion Man personified, but then, he's used to it. He was constantly on the move as SACEUR as well.

[AX10]

56. Clark!

:dem:

[Blue_Roses]

57. No one

It's way too early

[Doctor_J]

61. It's not a lean - I've already jumped

for Clark. With Boxer as co-pilot. And then Barbara and/or Obama after that.

[RebelOne]

63. I have to vote for Hillary because I want to see a woman

become president within my lifetime.

[ashling]

67. I started to click other

but I thought

Wes Clark / Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

[AspenRose]

84. Not bad

Personally I would prefer to see Bobby running the EPA. He'd be excellent there.

It's too soon for me to place my vote with anyone just yet.

[DemGirl7]

69. I'm undecided...even through I'll take anyone but Biden & Clinton n/t

[JJackFlash]

70. Al Gore

- hope he declares.

[ourbluenation]

72. Leaning Clark but would love to see Al in there. nt

[ProudBlue08]

73. Clark

Here's another one for Clark.

[usregimechange]

74. Leaning clark edwards but gore should be on there.

[Ignacio Upton]

76. I'm leaning towards Warner

But I also like Clark. I supported Clark in 2004, and might do it again if he runs, but if both Warner and Clark run I may flip a coin. Here's my rundown of each candidate:

Hillary: Too conservative for my taste on the Presidential level. I do not really likely her personallity-wise, but she is doing a great job as my Senator and I want to make sure that she only stays where she is (and I will vote for her next year, partly to stop the Katherine Harris of the North - aka "Jeanine Pirro" - my corrupt District Attornery.) She will have to admit her mistake on Iraq for me to consider her further.

Kerry: Has grown more of the spine since conceeding, and I like what he has done as a Senator in the last year. However, he had his chance last year and blew it. I do not believe that BS about how he "could not defeat a war time President" he was leading in almost every national poll and was leading in several states for most of the year. He blew it. He ran piss poor campaigning against the Republicans, and could not fight back against the lies and deceit of the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth."

Edwards: Similar reason as Kerry. I like him more than Kerry, but he is too tainted by the previous election.

Biden: Joementum 2.0 'Nuff said.

Vilsack: He is not an exciting candidate for us, and he is CHAIRMAN OF THE DLC.

Feingold: I would have considered supporting him until he got his second divorce. It's sad though, because he is really quallifed for the job, but I have to be pragmatic.

[MichiganVote]

77. Clark against McCain is my current guess

[Crazy Guggenheim]

78. Though I'm "Undecided" I could go for Feingold with Clark a close

second.

[otohara]

79. Al Gore -

He's twice the man he was in 2000. So smart, so articulate.

[EndElectoral]

81. Barbara Boxer..although John Conyers runs a close second

[sandnsea]

82. Stay in Iraq Wesley Clark

I swear I will never understand this place.

[ruggerson]

83. You noticed that too, eh? n/t

[Clark2008]

95. And I'll never understand supposedly nuanced Dems

who don't fully understand foreign policy and how it's actually done, but, oh well.

:eyes:

[Independent_Liberal]

86. Definitely Clark.

I think he's our man.

[wisteria]

88. Well first or not, Kerry has my vote. I just don't understand the Clark

push. He is a nice guy with foreign and military experience,but that is where it ends for me personally. If he turns out to be our candidate I would vote for him over any Repub and I would prefer him to Hillary. Kerry however still have my devotion.

[Einstein99]

89. I agree and disagree

I just don't understand the support for Clark. Personally, I like him, but people really need to look a little deeper. There is something there that the Republicans will use to destroy him. Clark is a train wreck waiting to happen.

As for Kerry, he is not a viable alternative. If he couldn't beat the very worst opponent the Republicans could possibly come up with (Bush), what makes anyone think he could win in 2008? I'm glad that Kerry is speaking out the way he is today, but he needs to enjoy his role as the distinguished senator the way Kennedy has and let someone else run the party and the country.

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. That comment is cut from the same cloth as the Shelton slur was

Insinuations are not my cup of tea, sorry. They reflect back negatively on those you use them. I don't mind it when it comes from Republicans, I expect that from them. There certainly are plenty of ambitious Democrats who will willingly throw stones at Clark if he runs again. There is plenty of time for us all to see who can hold up under the coming sticks and stones. You are just as entitled to your opinion as I am, but I do not go around making secret dark predictions about other Democrats. Just saying "I like him" does not wash your hands of accountability for your comments.

[Einstein99]

97. I think you are overreacting

and overinterpreting what I was trying to say. But I will say this, if Clark were to get the nomination, the Republicans would "Swift Boat" him the way they did Kerry, and they would probably get away with it again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

98. They will "swiftboat" anyone, or at least try to

"Swiftboating" is actually their fall back when someone actually has stirling military service. They simply call you a traitor willing to sell out your nation by pandering for votes if you don't. In fact they are doing that against Bernie Sanders as we speak (I don't know if Bernie served actually). And they have a specific playbook for every possible candidate they could run against. Same general idea, but individually tailored to each target. They have full time script writers for their attack soap operas for God's sake. That is how they operate. I am not looking for a teflon candidate, I am looking for a fighter who gives back more than he she gets and does it with integrity and truth. Truth happens to be on our side, last time I checked.

[Einstein99]

99. Point taken

:pals:

[Tom Rinaldo]

100. Thanks for that, it's appreciated n/t

[Clark2008]

91. No leaning.

I'm flat out SOLD on Clark.

I think my user name gives that away.

:7

[CTyankee]

94. But since Nancy Pelosi will be our President after 2006

we'll have to support HER.

My dream scenario (articulated elsewhere)is that once Dems have taken back the House and Senate in 2006, we get busy and impeach Bush and Cheney. Nancy Pelosi will have assumed the Speaker of the House position by virtue of the Dems in the majority party. Once Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted, we have President Pelosi.

Of course, she will have to choose a VP. Now who will THAT be?