Looks like HillaryR.Clinton will be President 2008

[ladylibertee]

According to this most recent poll

Latest 2008 Polls
MICHIGAN:
October 02, 2005

WH '08 Dem Primary

Hillary Clinton 35%John Kerry 13Al Gore Edwards 7Evan Bayh 5Joseph Biden 4Russ Feingold 3Wesley Clark 2Tom Vilsack 1Mark Warner 1Bill Richardson 1Ed Rendell 1Barbara
Boxer 1Undecided/Other 16A Strategic Vision (R) survey, conducted 9/25-27, surveyed 1200 likely voters; margin of error + 3%. Patry breakdown: 46% D, 42% R, 12% I (release, 9/29).


GEORGIA: Hillary's Lead Steps Up Again, But Rice Has Little Effect On GOPers
October 02, 2005


WH '08 Dem Primary Matchup Now 8/4 5/17 2/15Hillary Clinton 35% 33% 30% 30%John Kerry 12 11 13 17Al Gore 10 15 19 14John Edwards 7 6 8 9Wes Clark 5 6 6 5Mark Warner 4 na na naEvan Bayh 2 3 2 3Joe Biden 2 2 2 3Bill Richardson 1 3 3 3Tom Vilsack 1 1 1 1Ed Rendell 1 1 1 1Barbara Boxer 1 1 1 1A


Strategic Vision (R) poll; conducted 9/24-26; surveyed 800 likely GA voters; margin of error +/- 3% (release, 9/28). Dem subsample: 350 Dem voters; margin of error +/- 5.3%. GOP subample: 330 GOP voters; margin of error +/- 5.7%.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. I didn't know Peoria was in Georgia.

[rpannier]

2. 3 years is an awfully long time

Why don't we spend more time focusing in on 06. A lot can happen in 3 years.

[Apollo11]

3. Way too early to call 2008 ...

These polls show that Hillary has a high public profile in terms of mentions in the media and national name recognition. So right now she is at the front of the pack (of possible candidates) - named by around 1/3 of Democratic voters.

But the primaries are still a long way off and we don't yet know for sure who will be putting themselves forward. We know Clark is likely to run, but we don't know for sure whether Hillary or Al Gore will step up. Everything depends on who runs for the nomination, when they announce, and how they present themselves. The primaries get a whole dynamic of their own and are difficult to predict.

If I was Hillary I would be worried about getting through the Primaries as the so-called "moderate" candidate who supported Bush over Iraq. I think that there is a growing majority of progressive Democrats who will find it difficult to support Senators who voted for the war (Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, etc.). This situation creates the conditions where someone with a record of speaking out against Bush on Iraq and other issues - like Gore, Clark or maybe Dean - could come through and win the nomination.

OK so Hillary is in front right now, but she needs to watch her back! It's way too early to call this race.

www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net/
:)

[AtomicKitten]

4. Nope. I want Al Gore to run.

I will hold my breath until I turn blue. I swear I'll do it.

[CanOfWhoopAss]

6. I want Al Gore to win! nt

[AtomicKitten]

7. He's got a can of Whoop Ass and knows how to use it.

[Dinger]

52. If Not Clark, Gore For Me Too

President Gore that is.

[incapsulated]

5. This is meaningless

3 years out. Who was the pick back in 2001, according to these polls?

Hillary has name recognition. Anyone hear about Dean in 2001? Was Kerry a lock back then?

[AtomicKitten]

8. I know it's lame

But I was shredded by 2000 and again when Al Gore declined to run in 2004. If there's no hope, well, I'll need to mope again.

[ladylibertee]

30. Look at you.In here too.HMMM suspicious.

[incapsulated]

Are you stalking me?

I posted here before your other insane thread.

I don't hide my feelings about Hillary, you don't have to be suspicious, I will tell you: I don't like Hillary. I used to love her. I voted for her. Don't like it? Too bad for you. This poll is still meaningless.

[zanne]

131. Paranoid?

Your posts are, shall we say, "different". That's why people are noticing your username and reading your threads. Don't worry; nobody will hurt you. You're safe, OK?

[drummo]

48. Hm. Gore was leading the Dem polls in 2002 before he got out

So these polls don't mean anything other then the fact that there are a whole lot of spineless Democratic voters who are mad at Bush because of the war but would not have any problem to vote for someone who was behind Bush all along.

[skipos]

112. Yup nt

[ladylibertee]

9. Don't shoot the messenger.Al Gore is not running in 2008.Sorry

[Apollo11]

14. Never say never again ....

As a strong believer in strict gun control, I would never shoot the messenger. Nevertheless, you are wrong, sweet ladylibertee.

Gore has not ruled out running in 2008 and I don't think he will make his final decision until sometime in 2007.

www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net/
:)

[ladylibertee]

15. Sweet dreams are made of these.Who'd have a mind to

disagree?I travel the world in seven seas, everybody's looking for something........oooooohhhhhhhhhh.

[drummo]

50. You don't make much sense, do you know it?

What's this abstract language?

[bee]

67. song lyrics. great song too.

Sweet Dreams by the Eurythmics. Or if you prefer, Marylin Manson did a remake. both rock. IMHO.

[drummo]

69. I know about that song but mentioning it in the context

ladylibertee did doesn't make sense.

[Nederland]

76. Let me spell it out for you

Al Gore in 2008 = A Sweet Dream

i.e., a nice thought but NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

get it?

[drummo]

84. That part was no problem -- but look at the entire context

And spell this out to me :

Sweet dreams are made of these.Who'd have a mind to
disagree?I travel the world in seven seas, everybody's looking for something........oooooohhhhhhhhhh.


Does this make any sense?

[drummo]

49. You cannot possibly know that.

Most people expected him to run again in 2004. They turned out to be wrong.
They can be wrong again. Nonone can read Gore's mind other than he himself.

[LittleClarkie]

107. And you know this because....

Link, proof, something?

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. I think the media likes the Hillary 08 story. It has hints of glamor and

intrigue. I have no strong opinion about 2008. But trying to analyze it dispassionately -- at the moment I think Al Gore has the most advantages and the fewest disadvantages.

[Laelth]

36. The media has a secret love of monarchy.

Two competing dynasties (Bush vs. Clinton) struggling for control of a great nation--it just makes for a good story.

Pardon me while I pick up another, different book.

-Laelth

[drummo]

51. No longer so great

[AntiCoup2K4]

63. The question is whether they are even competing dynasties at all......

....and the more pictures I see like this, the more I think they're one and the same.

[drummo]

65. Good point

I've followed Clinton over since he left office.
He has been on both sides of the Bushes, whichever looked better at the moment.

[Kolesar]

11. 'Cuz she has "Joe-mentum"?

Lieberman 2004, baby, all the way !!

[bluestateguy]

12. In 2001 hypothetical polls showed Joe Lieberman as the nominee

You're not pulling the cart before the horse. You haven't even strapped the horse in yet.

[ladylibertee]

13. No, but apparently Howard Dean has...look

Dean Hypes Hopes For Mrs. Clinton In 2008 Race
October 02, 2005
The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, hyped Senator Clinton's presidential prospects in an appearance with her yesterday, describing her as a role model for "young women who hope one day that they will have a spot on the ticket."

Dems Agree to Recommend Early Primaries
October 02, 2005
Democrats trying to change their presidential primaries for 2008 agreed Saturday to recommend that at least two other states join Iowa and New Hampshire in voting during the opening days of the nominating campaign.

OK, be Prez, N.Y.ers tell Hil
October 02, 2005
New polls yesterday showed Sen. Hillary Clinton has a virtual lock on reelection and the go-ahead from New York voters to run for President - even if they wish she wouldn't.

[ikojo]

16. Another losing proposition....RWers are chomping at the bit for

the Dems to nominate Hillary Clinton. That way they can engage in all the culture war issues of the 1990s...

I say she is a lightening rod and it isn't for good. IMHO, if HIllary runs there will be another Republican administration in 2009.

[ladylibertee]

18. Nope! Name one RETARDICAN worthy to go against her?

[ikojo]

20. I can't name one pug at the moment but recall that the 2000 was

all but guaranteed for Gore...it came down to the wire and the Supreme Court handed it to Bush.

Bush was the most lame and ill informed candidate the pugs could run and he won. Mark my word, if Hillary runs in 2008, the pugs will pull out all the stops and she will lose. I don't care how far to the right she moves. I don't care how many panels she shares with Newt Gingrich and his ilk. The RW echo chamber does not like HIllary at all.

I do know that if BILL Clinton ran again, he'd probably win hands down, but not his wife.

[ladylibertee]

21. Sounds like someone has something against her.That's O.K. She

will be your president soon.

[ikojo]

23. Don't count your eggs....Hillary is a DLCer and we see what

success the DLC has had in helping the Dems regain the white house, congress and the senate since 1994.

I stand by my belief that Hillary's negative numbers outside of New York are too great for her to win primaries and thus the white house.

[ladylibertee]

24. Oh boy. Grrrrrooooowwwwwlllllllll. fst fst fst ! Okay, I'll see you in 08

[drummo]

59. You still don't make sense. Speak in English please.

[drummo]

58. Mine not that's for sure.

[drummo]

57. " but recall that the 2000 was all but guaranteed for Gore"

What do you mean by that?
Do you have data which confirms that theory?
Because I have data which confirms the opposite. The 2000 race was Bush's to lose.

[tenshi816]

89. A bogus RW e-mail that was around years ago,

the one that tried to say Hillary represented the Black Panthers back in the day, has started making the rounds again too - I've had three different fundie relatives forward it on to me in the last week (I sent them all to Snopes). The wingers are so rabid on the subject of Hillary Clinton that they're going to dig out every urban myth e-mail that's ever been sent about her and get the whole ball rolling again in order to get their fellow RWers frothing at the mouth again, well in advance of 2008.

[renie408]

43. They won't have to be worthy

They will just have to be upright and have a pulse.

Which states do you see her taking that we did not take in 2004? I know she is a beloved figure across the land and it is hard to think of there ever being any kind of ground swell against her, but stretch your imagination and tell me which states you think she will take? Let's pretend that there are people out there who are NOT sympathetic towards her (I know, I know...I am just being silly, but bear with me), how do you see her putting together an electoral majority? :sarcasm:

And how do you counteract the fact that Hillary anywhere on the ticket will have the freaks crawling out of the woodwork to vote against her?

Oh, and if you think she could take Georgia, you are on crack.

[drummo]

60. Hillary is a beloved figure across the land ???

Any evidence for that?

[renie408]

62. Sorry, I keep forgetting to add the 'sarcasm' thing

I always think it is so obvious that I don't need to. I will edit and add it in there.

[drummo]

66. OK, I get it. I asked it because I met people who really think

she is popular from coast to coast. Of course none of them provide any evidence.

[renie408]

68. Yeah, me too. I think they need to get out more. n/t

[drummo]

56. McCain, Guiliani

But it's not too hard to find someone worthier than Hillary Clinton,
who is nothing but an opportunistic trim. She has no original ideas, and no talent in policy making at the national let alone global scale.

[Nederland]

77. John McCain

He beats her in all the polls I've seen.

[drummo]

85. And he does that while being a LOSER

as Michael Moore put it very well

[second edition]

82. John McCain- even as an independent candidate he would win

against her.

[Apollo11]

22. Dean does not want Hillary

Dean is DNC chairman and a team player. Of course he says nice stuff about Hillary when he is asked to say something about her on the record. But if you read that quote - Dean said that Hillary is a role model for "young women who hope one day that they will have a spot on the ticket."

Sorry - but how do you get from that to having the idea that Dean wants Hillary to be the nominee in 2008? If he wanted to suggest that then he could have said something less indirect about 2008, something about Hillary being a leader - rather than just a role model.

[drummo]

61. Right. Dean doesn't want anyone to be the Dem nominee

who voted for that insane war. I'm sure Dean would prefer Gore.
One may wonder why.

[karynnj]

128. You are right , Dean didn't endorse her or anyone else

In his DNC role he SHOULD compliment all Democrats and endorse none. He is doing exactly what he should do. It was played as it was, because that iis the media's story - they want Hillary.

[MaineDem]

42. Oh please...

It's way too early and Howard DIDN'T endorse her.

[drummo]

53. That's New York. Doesn't mean a thing. Make Hillary poll in

Arkansas or Tennessee you will get a different result.

[second edition]

81. This is no endorsement! DNC Chair does not make endorsements!

He was just making nice- don't read to much into this.

[Larkspur]

95. Saying that Hillary can be a role model for young women with political

aspirations is not necessarily an endorsement of her by Dean for 2008 Prez nomination.

I know that Howard's brother is not excited by a Hillary Prez nomination. Howard can't play favorites because he's DNC Chair. He probably is still friends with Hillary because he was on her healthcare forum, but whether he is really supportive of her bid or not only Howard knows.

[MaineDem]

110. And he was speaking to women

There is nothing there that hints at endorsement rather praise for a very intelligent and inspiring woman.

[Clarkie1]

122. "a SPOT on the ticket" I can deal with.

Although Boxer would be a better choice for the first woman VP.

Clark/Clinton does have a nice ring to it, though (I mean just in the way it sounds).

[cassiepriam]

17. Doesn't matter who runs as long as elections are rigged.

Wonder why we keep pretending that we have free elections?

[Apollo11]

25. I agree with cassiepriam

Unless we focus on clean elections then we are doomed to relive Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 over and over again.

That's why the Democratic Party needs leaders who understand the importance of taking action to ensure clean elections. Also we need to support those leaders in pushing for the necessary changes to how elections are conducted. I'm sure a lot is happening in Congress and other places, also at State level. But we need to focus on it more.

Discussing who should run in 2008 is kinda fun (especially as Bu$h looks more like a lame duck with every week that passes). But it must not distract us from the most important issue, which is getting clean elections and restoring democratic government in the USA.

[cassiepriam]

27. Just a replay of last elections. Must have free elections and press.

Until we get free elections and press we are just spinning our
wheels. Living in fantasy island.

[Kolesar]

37. &the more posts we make on DU about "free elections" the better off we are

:eyes:

[cassiepriam]

126. No point in even discussing candidates until we have free elections

[mhr]

19. Hillary Supported Bush And The War Will Not Get My Vote

eom

[Apollo11]

26. You are not alone mhr

If Hillary decides to run then she will find the primaries much tougher than she could imagine. Especially when you have people like Clark or Gore who have always told the truth about Iraq.

[drummo]

64. Except that unlike Gore Clark just couldn't make up his mind about

the IWR. First he said "probably I would have voted for it" then he said "I would have voted no" on it.

[FrenchieCat]

88. Attempting to pump up Al Gore by deflating Wes Clark is pitiful

and really shows a clear hint of desperation in the PR game at DU. I don't believe that it is necessary, but obviously you do.

You echo the words of one RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and his right wing media...Drudge et al.

Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie has been saying retired Gen. Wesley Clark was really for war in Iraq -- but the record doesn't bear that out.

But Gillespie gives only selective excerpts of Clark ’s testimony to the House Armed Services Committee Sept. 26, 2002 . Actually, Clark repeatedly urged patience and diplomacy, criticized the Bush administration for undercutting "friends and allies" and said “I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq .”
snip

He made a clear distinction between threatening force and using it: "I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it."

And how did Perle summarize Clark's position?

I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingsprepared...
http://www.factcheck.org/article130.html

Here are the late Senator Wellstone's words.....
Let me be clear: Saddam Hussein is a brutal, ruthless dictator who has repressed his own people, attacked his neighbors, and remains an international outlaw. The world would be a much better place if he were gone and the regime in Iraq were changed. That's why the U.S. should unite the world against Saddam, and not allow him to unite forces against us.

A go-it-alone approach, allowing for a ground invasion of Iraq without the support of other countries, could give Saddam exactly that chance.

A pre-emptive go-it-alone strategy towards Iraq is wrong. I oppose it. I support ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction through unfettered U.N. inspections, which should begin as soon as possible. Only a broad coalition of nations, united to disarm Saddam, while preserving our war on terror, is likely to succeed.
snip
Acting with the support of allies, including hopefully Arab and Muslim allies, would limit possible damage to that coalition and our anti-terrorism efforts. But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2...

[drummo]

98. No I don't give shit about Gillespie

I just read what he told to the Globe and what he told previously to the Times

Those were his words. He never denied them. Noone has proven so far that those quotes were inaccurate. So when I see first "probably" then I see "no" that to me indicates that the guy just couldn't make up his mind.

edit: and it doesn't matter what he said in Sept when he failed to take a clear position about the IWR both in Oct and after it was passed.

[FrenchieCat]

118. Like I said...pitiful!

Don't worry, I'll start believing everything the Corporate Media puts out on Al Gore. Thanks for the Tip! Al Gore can thank you for that one!

[drummo]

124. Believe only what is true

No matter the source the issue is whether the report is correct or not.

The MSM said a lot of things about Gore which were true and a lot of things which were not true.

Same with Clark.

Unless you can prove that those two quotes in the Times and the Globe are false you don't have a case.

Clark never denied the accuracy of those quotes. In fact he called the Globe precisely because the Times quote started to haunt him during the primaries. His aids were nervous that it could hurt Clark at a time when the Iraq war was seen as a total disaster by most Democratic voters.
If the Times quote had been inaccurate Clark would have just said that they misquoted him. But he didn't do that.

[FrenchieCat]

125. Could you please post those again....

I mean the Times and the Globe quotes with the links. Thanks!

[drummo]

127. Sure. Here are the quotes and links

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

...

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

on the NYT website

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70F17FA385E0C7A8DDDA00894DB404482

full article

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm


then


"I would have voted no on that resolution," Clark said during that call. "I had serious concerns that the president had no intention of really building an international coalition." Clark said his doubts came as the result of discussions with friends in the Pentagon.


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/10/24/clarks_scrambled_message_on_iraq/

So first he said he probably would have voted for the resolution.
Then he said he didn't know wether he voted for it or not.
Then he said he would have voted for the resolution as a leverage.
Then he said he would have voted no on the resolution.


Is that consistent to you? By the time he made these statements he could know what the language of the resolution was. He could know it was not about leverage. It was a blank check.
Why the flip-flop?

[FrenchieCat]

134. No....really, I don't see what you see.

Both of those pieces were written a year after the vote, so I don't know how they become evidence of what Clark said a year earlier.

Clark, at the time, said that he would have supported "a" Resolution...and he said this when the resolution had not yet been finalized. Whatever he may have said one year later doesn't "prove" anything about his stance at the time. He has repeatetly admitted that he "bobbled" the question during that 75 minutes interview on the day that he announced.....but that he would not have voted for the resolution that would have given Bush a blank Check.

In fact, the Boston Globe piece go on to say.... "Told on Wednesday that last October he had sounded as though he favored the resolution, Clark replied: "The thing was, I would have voted for it for leverage, but had I been there and been part of that process, I would never have voted for it for war. The resolution I wanted was a resolution that would have brought them back to the United States Congress and showed cause before you went to war."

"I would have voted no on that resolution," Clark said during that call. "I had serious concerns that the president had no intention of really building an international coalition." Clark said his doubts came as the result of discussions with friends in the Pentagon.

The general then cited an Aug. 29, 2002, column he wrote for The Times of London. Judging from that column, Clark, like many experts at the time, believed Iraq likely had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear materials. But the United States had "a year, two years, or maybe five years or more" before Saddam got nuclear capability, and "we need this time," Clark wrote. War might be necessary, but only as a last resort, he opined. Meanwhile, the United States should work to forge an international consensus on Iraq, with focused sanctions, intrusive inspections, and humanitarian efforts to undercut Saddam's repression.

That column largely backs up Clark's contention that he favored a more patient...."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/10/24/clarks_scrambled_message_on_iraq/

Far as I am concerned, you are playing the same "gotcha" game that Fournier and Sigourney played after Clark announced is candidacy.

Your wish to continue railing on this reveals a lot more about you than anything about Wes Clark.

Thanks though....I'm sure you'll be railing on this until 2008! Good luck!

[drummo]

135. You don't see it because you don't WANT to see it

Both of those pieces were written a year after the vote, so I don't know how they become evidence of what Clark said a year earlier.

These pieces are evidence that Clark couldn't make up his mind about something that he could know all too well by the end of 2003. They show evidence that Clark was NOT consistent in his position about the IWR. If someone first says he probably would have voted for it then he says he wouldn't have voted for it that's hardly consistent.
For you to keep saying that he has been consistent in his opposition to the IWR only shows that you willingly ignore the evidence which is in Clark's own words.

Clark, at the time, said that he would have supported "a" Resolution...and he said this when the resolution had not yet been finalized. Whatever he may have said one year later doesn't "prove" anything about his stance at the time. He has repeatetly admitted that he "bobbled" the question during that 75 minutes interview on the day that he announced.....but that he would not have voted for the resolution that would have given Bush a blank Check.

I discussed the "a" vs. "the" issue in my earlier post. You ignored that too.
You can't have it both ways. First you say the "the" statement is not a direct quote so it should be considered a distortion of what Clark really said. Then you arbitrarly pick another part of the same article which is not a direct quote, either. And then you say this is proof that Clark opposed the Bush-Gephardt language because he said "a". How can you be sure that he said "a" when that is not a direct quote, either?

Moreover, if someone was so sure in Oct 9, 2002 that he would vote against the Bush-Gephardt language why is he not so sure about that a year later? It just doesn't make any sense.

In fact, the Boston Globe piece go on to say.... "Told on Wednesday that last October he had sounded as though he favored the resolution, Clark replied: "The thing was, I would have voted for it for leverage, but had I been there and been part of that process, I would never have voted for it for war. The resolution I wanted was a resolution that would have brought them back to the United States Congress and showed cause before you went to war."

And what does this prove?

1.Clark said this to the Globe long after the resolution was passed. You said earlier that because those pieces were written a year later they do not prove that Clark was for the resolution in 2002.
So this quote is in the same piece and you say this in fact proves that he was against the Bush-Gephardt resolution back in 2002. Again, you can't have it both ways.
With this statement Clark wanted to make sure that the primary voters believe he was against the war from the get-go. That was in his political interest at the time.


2.What he says here doesn't make sense. You either vote for it or you don't. You cannot vote for it for leverage if the resolution was not about leverage. It was about war. And at the time Clark told this to the Globe he knew it was about war. Not to mention that it's simply not believable that he didn't know the Bush-Gephardt language back in Oct 2002.


"I would have voted no on that resolution," Clark said during that call. "I had serious concerns that the president had no intention of really building an international coalition." Clark said his doubts came as the result of discussions with friends in the Pentagon.

Sure he told the Globe that he would have voted no on that resolution AFTER he told to the Times that he probably would have voted for it. This conversation with the Globe took place precisely because his aids started to be concerned that his earlier statement would create trouble for him.


The general then cited an Aug. 29, 2002, column he wrote for The Times of London. Judging from that column, Clark, like many experts at the time, believed Iraq likely had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear materials. But the United States had "a year, two years, or maybe five years or more" before Saddam got nuclear capability, and "we need this time," Clark wrote. War might be necessary, but only as a last resort, he opined. Meanwhile, the United States should work to forge an international consensus on Iraq, with focused sanctions, intrusive inspections, and humanitarian efforts to undercut Saddam's repression.

It doesn't matter what he wrote in Aug 29 since the whole issue is whether he could make up his mind about the resolution or not. If he said back in Sept that a resolution which authorizes the use of force is not needed (Sept testimony) then if he said in Oct 2002 that he would vote for a resolution which authortizes the use of force, which is exactly what he said according to the AP article, then how do you want to prove that he was consistently againts war with Iraq?
The fact is that he was not. He was on both sides of this issue and that is precisely the problem.

Far as I am concerned, you are playing the same "gotcha" game that Fournier and Sigourney played after Clark announced is candidacy.

If the "gotcha" game is based on facts than the "gotcha" game has to be played. Because it is important to know what someone who wants to run for president said about an issue as deadly serious as the invasion of Iraq. And Clark said all kind of things which are contradictory.
But you are doing exactly what Clark tried to do during the primaries. Cherrypick some statements which seems to indicated that he was against the IWR all along and ignore others which show that he was on both sides of the issue.

[Jai4WKC08]

140. Oh fer cryin' out loud

Are you still going on and on with your out-of-context "gotcha" crap, drummo? Is someone paying you to keep flailing away at this dead horse? Seems to me this is about the third or fourth thread with the same old spin and cut&paste partial quotes. I gotta think there's some sort of agenda here.

Look, anyone who knows beans about diplomacy knows that one of the ways a president can force an opponent's hand is to threaten the use of military force. It's what we did in the Balkans, several times, and any number of other occassions in recent history, by presidents of both parties. You're just showing your ignorance of the way the game is played if you can't understand the difference between giving the president leverage and giving him a blank check.

Clark has been perfectly consistent if you look at the issue from the same frame of reference he does, based on his background and experience.

If you want a candidate who will only discuss issues in simple declarative sentences, I can think of several on the Republican side who might be more to your liking.

[drummo]

143. Out of context?

You either say you would have voted no or you say you probably would have voted for it.

That's not out of context.

And if you don't agree with my points at least you should refute them by providing facts. Just calling them "gotcha" will not make it.

I posted about the subject in two threads. In the other thread FrenchieCat gave a link to this one, that's the way we ended up here.

As for the agenda: trying to make people believe something that just didn't happen (Clark being consistent on the IWR) just because it is no longer politically beneficial is itself an agenda. And that's what you and Frenchie have been doing while of course you seem to care so much about the truth when it comes to Bush.
I prefer to respect the truth no matter who or what the subject is.
And the truth is that Clark was on both sides of the IWR. Unless you can prove that those quotes are fake or distortions, which Clark himself never claimed, you don't have a case.

Look, anyone who knows beans about diplomacy knows that one of the ways a president can force an opponent's hand is to threaten the use of military force. It's what we did in the Balkans, several times, and any number of other occassions in recent history, by presidents of both parties. You're just showing your ignorance of the way the game is played if you can't understand the difference between giving the president leverage and giving him a blank check.

I understand the difference between leverage and blank check. That's why I knew in 2002 and know now that the Bush-Gephardt language was a blank check. By contrast, Clark claimed he had no idea what was in the Bush resolution and that's why he said he would have voted for the resolution. (Read the Globe article. He never tried to defend himself with that "a" vs. "the" argument. He defended his earlier statement he made back in Oct 9 2002 by claming ignorance.)
Moreover, by 2003 Clark could know all too well that the resolution was not about leverage. It was about war. Still he couldn't make up his mind about how he would have voted on it. Read the Times and the Globe quotes.

Clark has been perfectly consistent if you look at the issue from the same frame of reference he does, based on his background and experience.

Bullshit. Saying that I probably would have voted for it then saying that I would have vote no on it is not consistent.

If you want a candidate who will only discuss issues in simple declarative sentences, I can think of several on the Republican side who might be more to your liking.

Gore did not discuss the resolution in simple declarative sentences. But hell he knew back in Sept 2000 that the Bush resolution was about war that it was a blank check nothing less. And he never said probably I would have voted for it, or that I would have voted for it for leverage but I wouldn't have voted for it for war. He just said: I wouldn't have voted for that resolution. Why? Because you can't vote in two different ways on a resolution. What's so complicated about that?

[ladylibertee]

28. Almost all of them did because he LIED.That is the oldest excuse.

[Apollo11]

33. Tell Hillary to call Bu$h a liar

The day when Hillary says in public that Bu$h lied to the country about the reasons for invading Iraq, and when she apologises for voting to authorize the invasion ... that will be the day when a lot of us are willing to take another look at her as a possible candidate.

PS - Just to clarify - the above does NOT mean that I am hyping Hillary as a possible candidate for President. ;)

[drummo]

70. And a pretty lame exuse.

Hillary and everyone else in the Congress had the opporunity to do what Gore did or Scott Ritter did or the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity did and conclude that Bush's argument just didn't add up.
They failed to do it. Instead they chose the easier way and voted for his idiotic resolution.
Even the part where Bush basically asked for authority to wage war against any country in the region he thought posed a threat to the US was removed only after Gore's SF speech.
Now how insane is that?

Hillary was a lazy, opportunistic asshole in the fall of 2002 along with her colleagues on the Hill. Such a person has no place in the White House. Poor decision making is the greatest disqualifier.

[Larkspur]

94. Two thirds of the Dems in Congress OPPOSED IWR

It was mostly supported by those with Presidential ambitions and/or enslaved to the DLC or AIPAC.

[LynneSin]

139. Oh Goodie for your standards. Guess you don't care then about...

The Environment
The Shrinking Middle Class
The Poor
Health Care
Social Security
Civil Rights
Women's Choice
Fair & Balanced Judiciary
Rising Gas Prices (all dems supported Kerry's Bill btw)

I mean these issues are shit so you know it doesn't matter who the president is since we're democrats and we're only allowed to care about one issue.

Please give me another 4 years with a Republican who will not only continue the war but fuck up all those above issues too

Thanks!

[Kahuna]

29. If early polls had any real importance, Joe-Mental would have been the

Democratic nominee in 2004. Get it?

[JNelson6563]

31. About as valuable as a DU poll

which is less than worthless. Sorry but these scare tactics are ineffective.

Julie

[Mass]

32. No, it's looks like polls have her ahead - 2004 should tell us it means

nothing.

[Jacobin]

34. Then get ready for her to LBJ the IraqNam mess

by adding troops.

:puke:

[Crunchy Frog]

35. If polls this early had any meaning

we'd all be posting about President Lieberman by now.:)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

38. Gotta Give Her Credit . . .

ladylibertee's a true believer, and she'll see anything she wants to see.

Fact is, if we nominate Hillary, every bubba and bubbette will sit in rapt attention as their Religion Industry leader tells them every Sunday from now till November 2008 what a Satanist she is. Idiot conservatives from fly-over country will come back out from behind the baseboards where they live to start shooting watermelons again to prove Hillary killed Vince Foster, the South will once again be a foregone conclusion, Jerry Falwell will start marketing "The Clinton Chronicles" again and we'll be doomed to four to eight more years of insane "conservative" shenanigans in the White House; four to eight more years that may well mean the end of Democracy in America, the Democratic Party, and even the United States, if, Deity Forbid, the rest of the world calls in its chips on our debt. In short, it's too great a risk for a vanity presidency.

She's a nice person, Hillary is, I'm sure. But, whether she wanted it or not, she's also a lightning rod for the other side.

I got my fill of War Approvers in the last go 'round. As Dear Leader likes to say "Fool me once, er, umm, won't get fooled again."

[benburch]

78. I could not agree more.

Hillary Clinton should have a fine and illustrious career as a Senator, but should NOT be seriously considered for the Presidency. She's damaged goods where that is concerned.

[sniffa]

96. *snort*

:rofl:

[ladylibertee]

123. Actually,I am an Edwards supporter.All of this was done in an

attempt to find out the real reasons why the media says she is hated by her own party.I got my answer.

[FourStarDemocrat]

129. Some occasional reading instead would have been all that was neccessary.

People here have a variety of opinions about Hilary Clinton. You don't have to go about finding out people's opinions in such a dishonest manner by pretending that you are a Hilary supporter. Hilary is seen a possible candidate for some in the party, and others don't like her because she's taken some DLC positions and voted for the IWR. Many support her just for continuing on as a Senator. Why was that so difficult to figure out where you had to start two flamebait threads to retrieve this info???

Most people's antipathy towards Hillary shown in this this thread comes as much from their reactions toward your attitude and the way that you treat people who respond to your posts. For example your post "Have it your way, She will be your president in '08".

What you have here in your two flamebait threads is not a true survey about the support for Hillary Clinton, but a bunch of responses towards your own shallow and pretentious posts.

[Zynx]

39. What other result could you possibly expect at this point?

Other than Kerry, she has them all completely crushed on name recognition.

[Connie_Corleone]

40. It is still 2005.

What's the point at looking at these polls now? Can we at least wait until the end of 2006?

[FormerDittoHead]

41. Whoo! Thank God THAT'S over! Now we don't need those pesky elections! nt

[blm]

44. Guess we'll just have to see how everyone does during the debates.

.

[MrBenchley]

45. Sounds good to me....

Go Dems!

[drummo]

46. So this is the Dem party which is so mad about the Iraq war, right?

Hypocrites. Hillary voted for the disaster but the Dems are not willing to hold her accountable.

[renie408]

47. Seriously

Where do you live? Not being sarcastic at all. I have been wondering if maybe the people who honestly think that Hillary Clinton on the ticket will not doom the hopes of this party in 2008 live in blue states. That or you spend too much time on the internet talking to like-minded people.

I am not saying this to be a cow or a spoilsport or to denigrate Hillary Clinton. I admire her and if she gets the nomination, I will vote for her.

But it seems to me like we always forget the OTHER side. We get so wrapped up in our own candidate that we don't look across the aisle to see how THEY think.

I live in a very red state surrounded by very red states. Hillary Clinton is not going to win Georgia, I promise. She may get the nomination to run, but I think it would be a long shot for her to put together enough electoral votes to constitute a majority.

Hillary Clinton on the ticket will have every knuckle dragger in this country out voting against her. Do not discount the number of knuckle draggers in this country, in both parties. It has less to do with her being a woman and more to do with the incredible baggage she carries. She is STILL the woman people love to hate, whether she really earned it or not. Also, we forget that the other side can also run an 'anti-Bush' candidate. And probably will if they are smart. Or they will just paint the next candidate as 'Bush, only smarter and more competent'.

No matter what her qualifications, no matter how good she could be...I cannot see how it could be accomplished.

[Zapatero]

54. Hillary won't Run

IMHO, Hillary can be senator for many years, she can only be president for 8.


:dem:

[renie408]

55. Your mouth to god's ear.

My fear is that she would actually get the nomination.

[bee]

71. By your logic, actually, Giuliani will be our president in '08.

because every (useless) poll Ive seen shows both McCain & Giuliani kicking er ass handily.

Heres just a few:
http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

Do a search, youll find a ton of them.
So lets not get too ahead of ourselves here. mmmkay?

[drummo]

72. Could McCain and Guiliani with the Rep nomination?

Interesting that McCain is a proven loser he is still not treated as a loser.

[bee]

83. according to the polls they can...

which is why we cant really put too much faith in these early polls to begin with. I agree with you on McCain... by the way. But many R's still like him.

[zulchzulu]

73. Ask President Ed Muskie about how he was leading in '65 polls

Oh wait....um...

[zulchzulu]

74. First, ask President Eugene McCarthy...predicted by some in '68

Oh wait.....um...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. She Would Be A Damn Sight Better Than Any Republican

EOM

[drummo]

87. It depends

Hillary has as much judgment as a drunk driver. Wait...

[AzDar]

79. To WHOMEVER: Please stop shoving Hillary down our throats..

She WILL NOT be President. Gore, Clark, Edwards in ANY combination, please!!!

[AntiCoup2K4]

91. Amen to that!!

:headbang:

[renie408]

99. I second that Amen!

[Digit]

114. I agree with that sentiment eom

[second edition]

80. You can package her, you can promote her and you can throw

lots of money her way- she is still Hillary. When it comes down to getting serious and actually choosing our next President, I don't think name recognition alone will get her the top spot.We need someone who really knows what is going on and just doesn't pander to one side or the other for votes.(Will the real Hillary please stand up!) Someone like John Kerry for instance or even Al Gore.

Her high poll numbers just astound me when her name alone evokes negative comments from many. Who actually conducts these polls? Are a disproportionate number of people from NY polled to get the required results?

[bee]

86. maybe they only poll republicans... n/t

[renie408]

100. But you just can't take her out n/t

[drummo]

104. Sure you can. She was taken out after her health care debacle

which helped the Reps to take over the Congress.

Hillary was not a major player in policy making in the Clinton White House after that blunder. She lacks judgement.

[renie408]

108. No, sorry, it was a joke.

When I read that title line, it reminded me of the saying, "You can dress them up, but you can't take them out."

Hillary reminds me of that. You can nominate her, you can fund her campaign, but I don't think you could get her elected.

[Digit]

115. The same people whose polls show * with any decent approval ratings.

That's who.

[AJH032]

90. I'd support her in the general election

I think she'd make a great Democratic president.

[drummo]

102. Yep, with all her incredible ability to come up with

solutions to complicated problems, huh?

This is a woman who sat in Baghdad months ago on the day when a suicide bomber killed 120 people in Kirkuk and said that all those suicide bombings just showed that the insurgency was failing. She sounded like Dick Cheney.

Please, no more asshole in the White House.

[noonwitch]

92. I hope so!

I'm voting for her.

[drummo]

106. Despite her support for the war?

I guess you like those 2000 dead American guys and countless dead Iraqis. People like Hillary made that disaster a reality.

The last time I checked it was the Congress not the White House which could decide about war.
Good old Senator Byrd pointed that out -- the guy knew something about the Constitution but other Dems in the Congress apparently didn't.

They failed miserably because of people like Hillary.

[Larkspur]

93. Lieberman led in these polls in 2003 because of name recognition

and he didn't even win his home state of Connecticut in the primary.

[second edition]

97. Exactly!

I'd like to see them toss in the name of a popular sports figure or even an actor and see how they would poll when people are asked the "2008" question.

Anyone that wants to run can run in 2008- may the "best person" win. Its ridiculous at this point to just assume its going to be Hillary simply because she is ahead in some nonsense polls.

[Selatius]

101. It's a straw poll

It is so early for this kind of stuff that it's almost irrelevant except to show the people that Hillary has brand name power over the others.

I'm going to wait until the primaries to see who is really the front-runner. Let the people choose the next candidate in the primaries, not the straw polls.

[sepia_steel]

103. Too early for this.

Work on those seats, people :)

[FrenchieCat]

105. Thanks to the Corporate media for letting us know

who are next Democratic Presidential Candidate will be.

How could we survive without them and their power of persuasion? :sarcasm:

[Uncle Joe]

111. I agree FrenchieCat.

I hate being this cynical, but I have lost 92% of any faith that I may have had in the corpwhorate owned MSM to actually enlighten the American People as to the truth. If they are promoting some one; that is a red flag for me.

[trillian]

109. Oh, please!!!!

It's all about name recognition right now.

[skipos]

113. Bill Clinton must have been polling great numbers in '89

since he went on to win the nomination and election.:eyes:

[AntiCoup2K4]

116. This Hillary nonsense is really getting old

Frequently it seems that we get some
Really, really determined individuals wishing to
Evoke some very strong feelings and
Emotions among DU'ers by running their own little
Psyops on this board, often by
Embellishing themselves as supporters of a given candidate, while the
Reality is that they truly support another agenda entirely.

Truly the whole thing is
Really much sadder than watching the
Odd groups of 4 or 5 misguided people standing around
Lines of rented porta-potties at their so called "pro-America" rallies.
Lincoln is doing cartwheels in his grave at the sight of the modern GOP.

[FourStarDemocrat]

130. post # 123 says it all. ( flamebait) n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

117. why was she invited to meet with the Bilderberg group yet?

[GrantDem]

119. Please see...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4969517&mesg_id=4969517

[Boo Boo]

120. And it looked like

Gore would be President, and it looked like Dean would be the nominee, and then it looked like Kerry would be President...

[Clarkie1]

121. Clark is right where I want him to be right now.

Nicely under the radar.

I'd hate to have Hillary's numbers at this point in time...talk about being set up for a fall from grace (or, in this case, name recognition).

Edit: I meant under the radar with America at large; not party leaders, activists, or just those who are better informed about all potential 08' candidates.

Anyway, let's focus on 06' first.

[Neshanic]

132. Not gonna happen. Hillary will not get nomination. Clark.

[zann725]

133. Polls...schmolls. NOT if she were the ONLY candidatein '08...NO.

I'd rather not vote, than vote for Hilary. I don't mean to bash...but I've NEVER considered Hilary either a Democrat, OR a woman...or at least one who identifies with other of the female sex, and the plight thereof...for most of us even yet.

[ChiciB1]

136. Ya Know... Somebody Else Must Be Drinking Kool Aid Too!!

And this isn't very funny!

BUSH/CLINTON/CLINTON/BUSH/BUSH/CLINTON????? WTF??

Let's start the betting NOW! Uh, are there MORE THAN TWO names in politics today??? Haven't we had ENOUGH???

America is sick and getting sicker!!

[AntiCoup2K4]

137. Can we close the troll's threads already?

Since the O/P was tombstoned for being a Freep disruptor, I don't see a point in keeping her rants going.

[LynneSin]

138. Does anyone care about 2006

I'll worry about Hillary and the presidency when that time comes. I'd rather be fighting for the senate because at least we have a chance there!

[txaslftist]

141. Prefero Senor Gore.

[sunnystarr]

142. Well I'm glad that's settled then ... I won't have to vote or contribute.

(nt)

[jackbourassa]

144. REMEMBER WHEN LIEBERMAN LED IN 2003?

How well did that work out?