Forced Choice Between Hillary and John

[usregimechange]

Poll question: Forced Choice Between Hillary and John

Ha! You just had to see which John I was talking about. I will concede that Clark would smoke them so take it easy.

[Mass]

1. I dont want to choose between those two

[AmericanDream]

2. Edwards any day!

[JDPriestly]

3. John Edwards has great ideas

about economic issues. He understands that many, many Americans are utterly impoverished.

[eallen]

4. Where's the choice for "please, kill me now"?

:grr:

[Mitt Chovick]

41. Kevorkian isn't on the ballot

:-D

[tritsofme]

5. At least Hillary has a whole Senate term under her belt

And didn't spend half of it gone, trying to play president.

[aden_nak]

6. I said it in 2004, I will say it now. Edwards can win handily.

No knocks against Hillary. I actually like her a lot. But I think Edwards has the best chance of winning by a significant enough margin to out-do the cheatery of our own voting system.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Yet he couldn't win handily against Kerry

Kind of like how the Falcons would have beaten the Patriots in the Superbowl if only they had been able to get past the Eagles in the NFC Championship game.

[AmericanDream]

18. With the froantloading and McAuliffe coronation going on....

no one could have won against the choice of the insiders, which was Kerry. I'm glad Dean has decided to be fair and stay out of the whole thing. Edwards is the only democrat who beats both McCain and Guliani in a match at this point... and I have no doubt that once he gets the national platform to vocalize his message, he'll be more impressive than the politcally correct McCain and the "I'm a 9/11 hero" Guliani who has absolutely nothing to say beyond 9/11. And, I'm not even going to address the likes of Frist and Allen. Edwards would be a great choice for '08... but let's wait a few more years.... he'll have a tough battle in the primaries, but if he makes it, the general election would be his to lose regardless of who the freepers nominate... he speaks the language of "America" that appeals overwhelmingly to independents and even some consevatives... and of course, he is true-blue progressive, so liberals should be behind him (I,personally, will be behind any democrat that gets the nomination...)!

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. What specifically did McAuliffe do to nominate Kerry rather than Edwards?

:shrug:

[AmericanDream]

20. He was the DNC chairman.. and he was promoting him....

The DNC chairman has contacts and pull in all states and the dude was going all around plugging for Kerry.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. I don't suppose you can back any of that up?

Of course he has contacts and pull. But how did he use those contacts and pull to favor Kerry over Edwards? Or are you just assuming that he did because it fits your preconcieved notions? Is there are proof? :shrug:

[AmericanDream]

26. Were you following the primaries last year?

McAullife PUBLICALLY promoted Kerry... is that not proof enough? The DNC chairman is supposed to let the candidates fight it among themselves and not start coronating the winner; he should be neutral. He had the bully pulpit.. and he abused it. I don't care though... it's over and done with.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. I certainly did follow them

He did not publically promote Kerry to the detriment of Edwards. Please try to prove me wrong.

[AmericanDream]

29. Let's see...

First, here's what he said when Dean got in second in NH, behind Kerry:


"Dean, who stressed his status as the Washington outsider, must win at least one state next week in order to remain a realistic contender. "He is cooked if he doesn’t win next Tuesday in the Sunbelt," said Brad Bannon, a Democratic political consultant in Washington, D.C.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe echoed that sentiment in a New York Times article. Noting that nine states will hold contests by Feb. 4, McAuliffe said, "If you haven’t won in one of the nine states in all the regions of our country, with all the different constituencies involved, then I think it’s time to reassess your candidacy." When pushed to name one such state on Fox News by Brit Hume -- who cited McAuliffe's comment -- Dean replied that he would instead "put a finger on Terry McAuliffe," suggesting that the DNC chair should remain above the fray and not get into the business of winnowing the field."

source: http://www.alternet.org/election04/17679/

I was not a Dean supporter.. but why was McAuliffe putting down any of the candidates? Btw. I never said he promoted Kerry at Edwards' expense.. he did it at all the candidate's expense... because each time the DNC chair seems to directly or indirectly share his favorable view about one candidate, it makes it harder for the other candidates to make their case as people think that the chair must know all these guys and if he is promoting one of them, then that must be a winnable candidate. No hard feelings for him though... I don't care as long as it ain't happening again. I hope I find some other old info... but I'm tired *yawns*

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. He never said that he favored Kerry

He only said that candidates that don't win after the first nine states should may want to consider dropping out. Since those primaries hadn't happened yet when he said that, he had no idea who they may have been. Both Clark and Edwards went on to win primaries by February 4.

[aden_nak]

37. Often, the best candidate nationally loses our primary.

How we ever squeaked Clinton through the shitstorm of 1992 is a mystery to me.

[still_one]

7. sorry, neither one for me, I will skip this election

I will NOT vote for ANYONE for president who gave * the authority to go into Iraq

It will be just like Viet Nam with Hillary or Edwards. You will hear the same story how the Iraqiis are assumming more and more control, and we will leave as soon as they can handle it, etc., etc., etc.

Remember the Vietimization of Viet Nam

[pocket]

9. Dean Dean Dean

:)

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Dean has already promised that he would not run as a condition

for serving as DNC Chairman.

[still_one]

35. I would go for Dean, Feingold, Boxer

and others who opposed giving * the authority to go into Iraq

[AmericanDream]

21. So you'd rather sit out and let the Repubs take control again?

Rather than supporting a candidate who you might not agree with on the war but who has other good ideas on the economy and the numerous other issues confronting this nation. C'mon dont' put a litmus test out there... fight for your candidate in the primaries... but support the democrat in the general election (whoever it is!). Look at the whole picture... Iraq is a big issue but there are other great things wrong with this nation too!

[Rooktoven]

8. Clark would smoke them in a DU poll, not in real primaries.

I say JRE wins hands down this time. Too bad he didn't last time, Bush would be out of office.

[zalinda]

10. I'm really tired of the Presidential campaigning

Who cares? Everything can change in 2006 and that's when I'll start looking at candidates. Until then there are many, many other things to do, like election reform and impeachment.

These "polls" and my candidate is better than your candidate is so high school.

zalinda

[laugle]

11. Amen to that Zalinda N/T

[AmericanDream]

12. I third that!

[Pepperbelly]

16. absolutely right ...

Fucking ridiculous to be fighting primary battles for 08 before the election season for 06 has even started.

[election_2004]

13. Edwards

He's not my first-choice, and I honestly don't believe he has any real standing to run anymore.

But he would play much better in rural America than Hillary would.

[ChiciB1]

17. Go, Johnny, Go!!!! n/t

[IndianaGreen]

22. Edwards could not even carry his own state in 2004!

Enough of all these men! Let's try a woman for a change!

[AmericanDream]

23. Last time I heard.. it was Kerry who was the Prez nominee!

[IndianaGreen]

25. The VP candidate should carry his own state

else, why have him/her on the ticket in the first place!

[AmericanDream]

28. Even if it is RED hot..be realistic here... do freepers expect to win NY?

NO ONE votes for the VP candidate... especially when the southern, red state voters absolutely despised Kerry. I was campaigning there... and they all kept saying (the average folks... even the independents) that they felt uncomfortable with him. But they weren't going to vote for the VP candidate because that is now our political system works... people look at the prez. candidate esp. in a election as close as the 2004 one. Edwards knows how to talk to the southern residents... and he brought up our percentages in rural areas, where he campaigned the most. According to the Cook's report we increased our numbers in rural areas... you think that's because of Kerry? Nope. I like Kerry but he had the north-eastern liberal personality problem. Let's judge Edwards on what he does from now till the primaries....

Btw... they had a total of THREE edwards appearance in NC... you can't win the south unless you compete there... as both Edwards and Dean have been saying.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Forget the South! We lost it to the Republican Jesus!

There is no way in Hell one can appeal to a region so saturated with people that are against reason and science. As one that has the misfortune of living in a "red" state, we would be better off moving to a blue state and give up on Jesusland altogether. There is nothing left to keep the United States united! It is time for a divorce!

[election_2004]

32. With that attitude....

Democrats will indeed become a permanent minority in the U.S. Senate.

[AmericanDream]

34. C'mon ... where is your liberal spirit?

I don't think we can win states like flowing-in-red-blood-TExas.. .but there are some borderline states that we have a great shot at winning with well-organized grassroots, right message, and the right messenger. And there is a LOT to keep the United States together... don't be a pessimist... we need the right leaders in this country. Not the current "divider" who occupies the WH.

[election_2004]

31. I agree

Couldn't agree more! :)

http://www.lincoln2008.com

I think the best presidential candidate for 2008 is indeed a woman! ;)

[Darkamber]

36. Edwards any day of the week...by the way....

I saw on CNN today that they were talking about Edwards and how he was courting the "liberal blogs" and inviting those who run the blogs to his house etc. They showed a picture of his One America Web site.

Edwards is not dumb. Last time he failed because he didn't have the ground troops. There were not enough of us to spread around and things were too fast.

He makes a stand for Pres in 08. He's directing his attention at us and the bloggers first and taking his moves from Howard Dean. Don't think the grassroot support that Dean had was not lost on Edwards. He was it first hand and he's smart. He learns from mistakes in the past.

Hillary will divide worst then anything we can imagine, but let them play her as the front runner. The others can play behind the scenes for now. It's still quite some time yet before any of them have to get serious.

[BlueIris]

38. Clark would, in fact, smoke them--he'd smoke most candidates.

And I don't really care for the General.

Edwards, though. Sorry, HRC, when you became anti-choice, you lost me. Forever.

[enough already]

39. Edwards, if given this choice

He would at least have a chance to compete in the South, whereas Hillary doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell there.

[formernaderite]

40. I love Edward's rhetoric...

however, I don't think he could win the general. Basic lack of experience, is why. I'd like to see him run for Governor of North Carolina first. I think he could easily win...they've elected plenty of democrats for Governor. In 08, we've got to look very closely at the Governors in our party, they are seen as the ones with executive experience. Particularly since the GOP will probably field a Senator...it could be an easy smack down.

[geek tragedy]

42. Hillary has more balls. eom