Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Most of my analysis after the mid-terms, for the Presidential, is gonna focus on the nuts and bolts of who's doing what to win the nomination. But regarding the general, consider that if Jon Tester feels this way, the position that most '08 Dem candidates in toss-up and Republican-leaning areas of the country are going to be in will be similar:Jon Tester, the Democratic Senate candidate threatening to upset a sitting Montana senator, dismissed a potential Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy [Tester said "I don’t think she does much" for him] in favor of a more moderate candidate. Tester, speaking to The Associated Press in a wide-ranging interview Thursday, said he was disappointed to hear centrist and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner dropped out as a potential party candidate in 2008.Tester mildly praises Richardson of the other wannabees. Speaking of which, UNH has a poll out for Democrats showing:

Sen. Clinton 30% John Edwards 16% Al Gore 10% John F. Kerry 9% Joe Biden 5% Wesley Clark 4% Bill Richardson 3%

Funny that the poll question read "Senator Mark Warner" (pdf).

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Jon Tester (all tags)

Comments

127 Comments

Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

I think we can agree that Tester is looking for a less POLARIZING candidate, not a more centrist candidate (hard to get more centrist then HRC right now). Especially since Tester is fairly far to the left himself. I would imagine that Tester would heartily endorse Edwards were he to win it, since Edwards is southern and is not as hated (or known) out west. It's the perception of being a librul rather than actually being one that kills candidates .

by adamterando 2006-10-13 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

"Libul"? That's right out of the GOP lexicon.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

"Libul" "Librul"? That's how Rush spells it.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Well DUH! That's my point.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Your point was to help Republicans by propagating their putdown of liberals?

Never use Conspeak.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Oh give me a fucking break. My goal was to point out how conservatives view the word liberal as a dirty derogatory word. I don't think I'm convincing anyone at this particular site that it is. And in case you have been living under a rock for the last 34 years, liberal IS a dirty word for most people. Have you noticed that in every national survey, the percentage of people who self-identify as liberal is NEVER above 20%, while moderate and conservative are ALWAYS above 30%. Why do you think most people on blogs (including this one) have shunned it, in favor of the much more positive sounding "progressive". It's hard to trash "progressive" because it conjures up images of moving forward and making things better, whereas liberal conjures up images of over-permissiveness and excess.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Why do you think most people on blogs (including this one) have shunned it, in favor of the much more positive sounding "progressive"

There you go again....playing right into GOPspeak......

.....the Dukakis syndrome -- that loss of nerve that has allowed conservatives both to define and to demonize liberalism for the past decade and more... You remember, of course, that it was during the 1988 presidential campaign that George Bush I attacked Democrat Michael Dukakis both for opposing the Vietnam War and for stating he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Both proved, Bush said, that Dukakis was a liberal. Dukakis responded to that as an attack on his patriotism. He defended neither liberalism nor the ACLU.

Dukakis might have responded by saying: "I am surprised, Mr. Bush, that you are not a member of the ACLU. We do not have to agree on all the positions that the ACLU may take on this issue or that, but we should applaud its effort to protect the rights of Americans, even those charged with heinous crimes." Dukakis might have defended liberalism as the legacy of FDR and Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy -- none of whom were anything like 100 percent liberals but all of whom advanced the cause of a truly liberal democracy. But by ducking the issue, Dukakis opened the way for the far right to make "L" for liberal a scarlet letter with which to brand all who oppose them. In the course of that 1988 exchange, Bush offered a telling observation, saying, in effect, that liberals don't like being called liberal. You seem to have reaffirmed that analysis.

Personally, I associate "progressive" with the DLCorporatists since that's what they call themselves.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Gotcha. So everyone who calls themself progressive (including Feingold, Bowers, Stoller et al.) you associate them with DLCorporatists. Wow, you must really dislike everyone in the Democratic Party. And the Green Party for that matter. I guess you'd prefer to move to New York so you can vote for the liberal party since that word is so important to you.

You can either keep banging your head against the wall and say "NO, LIBERAL IS A GOOD WORD! IT IS IT IS IT IS!!! SO YOU BETTER SAY IT IS!!!" or you can acknowledge that at this point in time it is not useful to advancing the movement. Progressive defuses this. I would much rather change what we call our ideology, than actually change our ideology.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Gotcha? How childish.

I've never heard Feingold call himself a progressive (If you have, provide a link, please), but I seem to remember Bowers and Stoller having each backed some pretty shady DLCers on this blog -- so they must be progressives.

I'm old enough to remember when "conservative" was a dirty word that Republicans ran away from. But they reclaimed it in the late 70's-early 80's by defining it in a good way while simultaneously demonizing "liberal". They didn't do it by repeating the opposing party's talking points as you do.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Look dude, you seriously need to take a course in sarcasm or cognitive reading skills. I said gotcha as in "Ok, I understand." Not gotcha, as in "Ooohh I caught you." Much like I originally spelled librul like I did to make a point of how people perceive liberals or progressives or Democrats or cheeseheads or whatever you want to call us.

Yes I know conservative used to be a dirty word and conservatives did a brilliant job of reclaiming it. But I don't want to put that much effort into rebranding the word liberal. I'd rather junk it and go with progressive because I like it better to describe our movement (as in we have an overall goal for this planet that we are striving for).

As far as Feingold, you must not check your email that often (oh, sorry, just so you know, I'm being sarcastic again). Haven't you ever heard of Feingold's progressive patriots dealy?

by adamterando 2006-10-13 11:41AM | 0 recs
Richard Pryor and the "n-word."

Pryor eventually decided to take this out of his public vocabulary after a trip to Africa.

Nevertheless, it was his decision, not those of the literary critics.

For people with shit for brains, you could put "librul" in quotation marks.

Oh, sorry, that should have been "shit" for brains.

by stevehigh 2006-10-13 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Richard Pryor and the "n-word."

Oh, sorry, that should have been "shit" for brains.

Shouldn't that sentence read,

Oh, "sorry" (because I'm not really sorry), that should have been "shit" for brains?

by adamterando 2006-10-13 12:09PM | 0 recs
No

I really am a sorry sack of shit for lengthening this thread.

by stevehigh 2006-10-13 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

But I don't want to put that much effort into rebranding the word liberal

In that case, you and a lot of others will be running from it for a long time more. Because Republicans are going to call you liberal not matter how much you call yourself progressive

Taking back the word liberal is the boldest and best option -- except of course for those who AREN'T liberal.

(I just remembered that Nader calls himself progressive too. Since DLCers and the arch anti-DLCer both call themselves the same word, it would seem to have little meaning anyway.)

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

(I just remembered that Nader calls himself progressive too. Since DLCers and the arch anti-DLCer both call themselves the same word, it would seem to have little meaning anyway.)

As does the word liberal.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

I never heard of DLCorporatists calling themselves liberal.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

And yet, it still has no meaning.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Let me change slightly that last sentence.

I would much rather change what we call our ideology than actually change our ideology, OR waste precious time and energy trying to rebrand the term we use to describe our ideology.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

I've never heard DLCorporatists call themselves progressives, but I suppose it's progress for corporations.

I call myself a progressive because I am not a liberal and the term "lefty," unfortunately, is not an accepted term of political ideology.

When I take Zogby's online polls, the left end of his ideology spectrum is "Very Liberal/Progressive" with "Liberal" being one step to the right. So that's one pollster, at least, who agrees with the idea of "progressive" being to the left of "liberal."

I agree with the position that liberals should actively reclaim the term (though I will not take part in it) but I don't think using it sarcastically makes one guilty of "using conspeak" when the use was ironic to begin with.

by the wanderer 2006-10-13 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

I guess the DLC is trying to trick people into thinking they're liberal nt using the more "acceptable" progressive.

All I know is I'm a liberal and I don't like it when Democrats put us down with GOPspeak.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Sorry,

I call my self a 'progressive' because I identify with the folks in the late 1800s and then again in the 1920-30s who were progressive.

In the 60s I a was a member of the 'counterculture' which the ReThugs under Dick Nixon got so much mileage out of vilifying.

I really don't care what the ReThugs call me. They are lying scum and I can prove it.

Which I do, several times a week on my blog.

by Pericles 2006-10-13 03:43PM | 0 recs
I really don't get the Hillary hate....

I'm not excited about her as a candidate, but I would definitely vote for her. After all that Hillary Clinton has been through, does ANYONE think there's a candidate with more cajones than her? She seems like the only candidate who can give as good as she gets. I like her, just not excited by her.

My #1 test for '08 contenders is cajones and Hillary has 'em. Other than Feingold, I'm not sure about the rest.

by crazymoloch 2006-10-13 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I really don't get the Hillary hate....

I'd vote for her to of course. My point was that Tester wasn't trying to steer the Democratic party in a more rightward (and centrist) way. He's trying to steer it away from polarizing figures that do not play well in the Bush states. Clinton is one such polarizing figure.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 09:14AM | 0 recs
Some are just players

It's going to be hard to jump on the Clinton train. Many are looking for a candidate where they can be important regardless of ideology.

Enthusiasm on this board for Webb, Clark, and the late great Warner campaign suggests that many of our libruls ain't all that librul.

And please don't give me any shit about "librul." I actually kind of admire that lying Nazi whore Limbaugh because he's got such a nice set of draft-dodging piles and that monster drug habit. Poor guy, must hurt him to take a man-sized shit if he forgets to swallow half a bottle of Oxycodone beforehand. You have to admire his courage, esp. for courageously calling women names. You just have to give all the credit in the world for that.

Hillary is as just about as liberal as Feingold. I admire her for sticking with the Big Dog. Without his wife on board, Bill Clinton would have been a lonely voice in the woods, like Gary Hart.

I'd like to see a woman run. But I also feel that we don't need to go looking for trouble because trouble comes looking for us.

I like Gore-Kerry, two nationally-known Vietnam vets, against McCain or anyone else. The problem with a fresh face like Warner is that fresh faces are easy to slime because nobody knows jackshit about them until they skyrocket to fame. Gore, Kerry, and both Clintons have nearly 100% name ID, and I think the ticket should any two out of the four.

The "Kerry plus one" strategy is going to be tough for anybody who runs.  Warner certainly had a shot at bringing along VA, but it wouldn't be a slam dunk.

Personally, I think Kerry did well to carry the states he carried notwithstanding the "expert" opinion on this board about how "easy" it would have been to run a winning campaign for him. Easy like playing fantasy football instead of lining up against #76 Steve Hutchinson, 6'5", 313.

The only people I'd count on to deliver their own states are Bayh, Byrd, and former senator John Breaux. One or two terms, as we found with Johnny Edwards, doesn't build that much regional loyalty. The guy's sure got it, though, doesn't he? Look how he zoomed to #2 in the upthread poll.

Christ, how I wish Gore would run.

by stevehigh 2006-10-13 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Some are just players

You think Bayh has a better chance at winning Indiana than Warner of carrying Virginia? Frankly, that's cuckoo. Virginia would have been a semi-comfortable win for Warner, probably in the 5 point range. The state leans maybe 4 points red at base instinct right now and that's moving slowly in our direction. A favorite son with Warner's popularity level would have swamped that 4 point slant.

Indiana, on the other hand, is almost like a transplanted southern state. There aren't the huge urban areas for Democrats to dominate. Tha partisan index is high teens red, or something like that. I haven't looked at it lately but that's my memory. Bayh would lose Indiana comfortably.

by Gary Kilbride 2006-10-13 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I really don't get the Hillary hate....

Yes, polarizing here in Montana which has nothing to do with left, right or center.  Hilary will never get a break here.  

by Feral Cat 2006-10-13 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I really don't get the Hillary hate....

Hillary is despised by so many liberals because she panders too much to conservative viewpoints.

The most recent example is that while she voted against Bush's torture law, she thenturned right around and said it's really OK.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 10:32AM | 0 recs
RE: Cajones

You don't think it takes cajones for Wes Clark to walk right into that den of snakes at Fox News and slap around Sean Hannity et al, while maintaining both composure AND civility?  That's more cajones than even Dean has, apparently...

by paul minot 2006-10-13 10:33AM | 0 recs
Are you serious?

Are you honestly comparing debating punks on an sci-fi channel to putting oneself front and center on the unpopular side of public opinion (I'm talking about Dean and his position on the war)? Clearly the Wes Clark juice is screwing up your perception of reality!

by crazymoloch 2006-10-13 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: RE: Cajones (no!)

Please have some mercy on the Spanish speaking population.  The word is cojones.

Cajones are furniture drawers.

And try mixing heuvos in there from times to time.

by ChetEdModerate 2006-10-13 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I really don't get the Hillary hate....

My problem with her is that -- and please take this solely as the political metaphor it's intended to be -- she doesn't.

Sure - she's easily the most villified and attacked Dem possible of the 08 slate... and that alone go a great way towards causing me to pinch my nose and roll up my sleeves to help, were she the nominee.

But I just absolutely, positively cannot stand triangulation.  From her sponsorship! of the flag burning bill to her Iraq stance (and please... save the 'secret CW' that she tells folks differently in private... that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about).

It's why I'm 100% behind Russ and why I've also donated numerous times to Tester.  Russ was the sole vote against the Patriot Act and to me, Testers response to Burns on the Patriot Act (~damn right I'd repeal it) was the moment of the cycle for me.

I look very, very poorly on candidate - Dem or Republican - who uses any issue of civil liberties to burnish their "centrist cred" and Iraq issues are a close second.  Hillary has crossed both those lines.

by zonk 2006-10-13 12:11PM | 0 recs
Exactly. Tester understands that Hillary...

...is a non-starter with too many voters, whereas they are quite open to considering someone like Edwards.

Anyone who lives in a red state or a purple one, as I do, and regularly spends time with all sorts of people knows this is just reality.

by MeanBoneII 2006-10-13 11:10AM | 0 recs
Well, Edwards is NOT exactly too popular in NC

On election day in 2004, he polled a quite weak, barely favorable, numbers in NC, as you know.


North Carolina, Nov 2004

John Edwards: 51% favorable vs 46% unfavorable.

Link


Your implication that he'd appeal better to red-staters than others would or could, seems to contradicted by his home-staters themselves.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, Edwards is NOT exactly too popular in NC

That also could be because he got tied to a "librul Yankee Taxachussets Demmycrat" (was the sarcasm clear enough?). Like someone mentioned upthread, Edwards hadn't been around long enough tie himself closely with his state. If he were on his own, I think people would see him in a more favorable light since his cultural appeal (however one defines that) would dominate the ticket, instead of be dominated by Kerry.  

by adamterando 2006-10-13 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, Edwards is NOT exactly too popular in NC

That also could be because he got tied to a "librul Yankee Taxachussets Demmycrat" (was the sarcasm clear enough?).

Nope. This justification is a poor excuse, IMO.

Being on the ticket had nothing to do with Edwards' own personal favorability (because most normal people would cheer on someone they like to become vice president, regardless of the front guy). Those that were actually affected by Edwards being on the same ticket as Kerry to change their own liking (as against their vote) towards him, didn't like him strongly enough in the first place.

Like someone mentioned upthread, Edwards hadn't been around long enough tie himself closely with his state.

I haven't see the upthread comment, but if you meant that he spent more time in SC (did he?) Kerry/Edwards lost South Carolina by 17.2% (and NC by 12.6%).

I know, Edwards supporters will comeback and try to smear the blame entirely on Kerry, but unless there is actual data to back up any such statements, it's just mere speculation.

Furthermore, Edwards only have won the senate seat had he run in 2004 for senate (according to a Fox News poll), by a 3% the vote, which correlates with his weak favorables quite well, and hence corroborates them.

I think it's pretty clear that Edwars is not very popular in NC.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, Edwards is NOT exactly too popular in NC

What you've shown is that Edwards was not very popular in 2004. Who knows how he's perceived now? Has there been any polling done since the GOP brand is not quite so popular now?

And I don't mean the time he spent in SC, I mean that he was a one-term senator who did not have time to build up support over multiple terms like a Bob Grahm, John Breaux, Fritz Hollings. One-term incumbents are almost always the most vulnerable incumbents for that very reason.  

by adamterando 2006-10-13 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, Edwards is NOT exactly too popular in NC

sorry, no recent statewide favorabitity data available yet. And thanks for the clarification on the one-term point you've made.

I do agree that over several terms, one could develop a larger base of support, but it was Edwards' choice to jump to the presidential sweepstakes just 3-4 years into his first senate term.

What I would really like to see Edwards do is run for NC governor, and establish some kind of a record to speak of. He'd also get a chance to implement his poverty rhetoric, and if successful he can show his results and potentially win a supporter in me, for example. That's a sincere proposition.

As of now, for Edwards, I see a short record with a major negative (the war) and hardly any distinguishing positives (but a LOT of rhetoric).

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 03:03PM | 0 recs
Numbers obviously affected at that time...

...by being on the bottom of a ticket with a candidate who said in the primaries that he would ignore the South in the campaign, and then did precisely that.

He hasn't been at the top of the ticket and proceeded to lose his home state, as someone "accomplished" in 2000.

Pew Research Surveys show Edwards has the highest favorables (mid- to high 60s) of any prominent Democrat among independents and Republicans, even slightly better than Bill Clinton's.

by MeanBoneII 2006-10-13 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Numbers obviously affected at that time...
Reponses partly found:
above, and below.
by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 03:07PM | 0 recs
The obvious
McCain and Clinton have the highest name recognition, but also very high negatives. Too bad Dean wasn't in that poll. I know he promised to keep the DNC chair, but powerful insiders seem to want him out. If they force another chair, Dean should be released from his promise not to run. Even if he doesn't run, his endorsement of a candidate would carry great weight with me.
by antiHyde 2006-10-13 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: The obvious

Dean probably can't be forced out short of some impeachable offence. And with Democrats poised to do very well this year his political stock should be on the rise anyway. And I can't imagine him leaving the DNC and stepping into the path of Hillary's steamroller.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The obvious
The steamroller that will flatten the hopes of millions of Democrats (and democrats) with a McCain Presidency.
by antiHyde 2006-10-14 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Hillary has the money and the machines -- media and political. I expect many if not all of the others to decide against challenging her since it would be bad for their careers to incur her wrath.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton
I refuse to believe that America really only has the choice of two political families and I won't support her in a primary for that reason.
by carsick 2006-10-13 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Sick isn't it? and after Hillary the Bush machine will be all geared up to foist Jeb upon us.....and after that Chelsea will be of age!

I despise Hillary and will oppse her. But based on the bavior I've seen from enough Democrats in my life, her money and machines are unstoppable.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

I don't know if Jeb is up to the task... but his son might be, George Prescott Bush. Ya know, the 1/2 hispanic one!

by Legionnaire 2006-10-13 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

I don't know if Jeb is up to the task...

How much of a task can it be to follow in George's footsteps?

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 01:53PM | 0 recs
32 Years with one member of two families

in the White House as President or VP if she wins.  36 if she wins relection in 2012.

Over 75% of my life will have been lived with a Bush or Clinton in the White House.  For many, their entire lives will have been lived under a Bush or Clinton WH.

Is that a Republic? or even a democracy?

by northcountry 2006-10-13 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: 32 Years with one member of two families

Ugh.  We need a break until Chelsea can run.

by Feral Cat 2006-10-13 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: 32 Years with one member of two families

Over 75% of my life will have been lived with a Bush or Clinton in the White House.  For many, their entire lives will have been lived under a Bush or Clinton WH.

It's as if the Houses of Lancaster and York have resumed the War of the Roses after 500 years.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Can't a Democrat go one day without criticizing another member of our party?

by tigercourse 2006-10-13 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Republicans are criticizing their own these days too. And that's a good thing too.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Not until Democrats are not afraid to call themselves Democrats again.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

both points are good ones, but I think we really are living through a re-alignment in the party. I hope. I hope we jettison the third way dialog that I think has led the party down a small, dark, dirty, dead-end alleyway.

As to the diary, looks like Tester is firmly in the third way camp. Even so I'd love to see him emerge as a new star unseating the incumbent.

"Get three coffins ready" folks: Burns, DeWine, Allen.
"My mistake, four": Lieberman.

by mbair 2006-10-13 09:23AM | 0 recs
Jon is a natural, but can get cautious at times

Jon is a natural leader and a savy politician and becoming more and more statesman like.  But this is Montana. This remark of his this morning really bothered me at first.  But I've talked to him a lot and believe he is a fighter for the middle class and may not know much about Mark Warner or Bill Richardson. But boy do they hate poor Hilary here.  It's a pretty misogynist place and just when you think it's safe, some guy will say something shockingly icky.  Odd because Montana sent the first woman representative to Congress, Jeanette Rankin in 1917.  No...Odd is perfect.  

by Feral Cat 2006-10-13 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon is a natural, but can get cautious at time

If Tester is a moderate because he comes from a state with lots of moderates then more power to him. The people are supposed to represent their state anyway. I just don't want those moderate positions or that rhetoric defining the National Party. I want old school economic and social justice. I need it, we all do.  

Enjoy the underbrush. Down with hairballs. Up with people.

by mbair 2006-10-14 10:06AM | 0 recs
Inoculation

He's going to get slammed as a Ted Kennedy/Hillary Clinton Democrat.

Not a bad plan to say it first in cowboy country.

I bet if gets in, Hillary buys him the first latte.

P.S. First time I used the spellcheck (went unconscious on "inoculation"). Granular XML--it's a beautiful thing, and this really is a cool website.

by stevehigh 2006-10-13 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Edwards will be running for VP again in 2008. So he'd better be careful what he says about Hillary.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 09:12AM | 0 recs
Nah, Edwards is not a co-star. He's the big dog.

by Feral Cat 2006-10-13 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Nah, Edwards is not a co-star.

Actually, he's barely a supporting player.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 12:21PM | 0 recs
You don't want to know.

by MeanBoneII 2006-10-13 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Nah, Edwards is not a co-star.

Given Sitkah's "standards", I think his name is Jesus H. Christ.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Nah, Edwards is not a co-star.

Then maybe you and your sunny outlook could tell us just who the star player is?

Petty sarcasm aside.....

I've only said about 20 times on this thread that Hillary has the money and machine to become the nominee. I've also said that most of the others will probably take a look at cold, hard reality and not even run. I don't support her, but I'm not so wrapped up in my preferred candidate that I can't  see political facts when they stare me in the face.

Given Sitkah's "standards", I think his name is Jesus H. Christ.

More petty sarcasm aside......

My standards aren't all that high. I just don't support Democrats whose fingerprints are on the most odius aspects of Bush's agenda. I guess I'm not as easily "mollified" as some.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 01:40PM | 0 recs
see you out there then

Edwards has definitely had the best summer possible for a candidate like himself, unemployed with a weak national platform. I can't wait to see this thing get started. I know, I know, mid-terms first.

Although I firmly believe that Hillary is running and has the front-runner status you have to wonder when the meme will shift from a Hillary anti-Hillary race to a Hillary Edwards race. If these trends in the polls continue and with the new schedule then Edwards has to be considered the front-runner.

by mbair 2006-10-13 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: see you out there then

Wait, didn't Edwards have to teach summer school at UNC? :p

by adamterando 2006-10-13 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: see you out there then

i If these trends in the polls continue and with the new schedule then Edwards has to be considered the front-runner.

How could a guy who won only one primary in 04, and didn't deliver his home state in the election, and is second to Hillary before she has even spent a dollar or turned on her political and media machines, be considered a front runner until he's actually in front?

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: see you out there then

Because he's the only Democrat that polls even with McCain and better than Guiliani.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 10:21AM | 0 recs
IMHO, he's a paper tiger...

The Dems may love him--I like him a lot, actually--but he has absolutely NO security credentials, and will get POUNDED in the general election big time just for that reason.

by paul minot 2006-10-13 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: IMHO, he's a paper tiger...

We'll see. Let's see McCain try to defend the Iraq albatross after another 2 years of catastrophe.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: IMHO, he's a paper tiger...

Last president to have "national security credentials" when first elected: George H. W. Bush.

Image is much more important than resume in presidential politics, once you've reached the threshold to be considered a viable presidential candidate (usually having been elected Gov. or Sen.). Like Bill Clinton in 1992, John Edwards combines a sunny optimism with a promise of hope for the working man. His denunciation of the Iraq war isn't a foreign policy in and of itself, but with the right advisors (and maybe a veep with foreign policy credentials - think Bill Richardson), John should be able to pull it off.

Look back to JFK. Everyone thought he was too young and inexperienced. He hadn't even served two terms in the Senate. Sound familiar?

by robin oz 2006-10-13 12:18PM | 0 recs
And Abe Lincoln

Who lost his Senate race to Douglas but then became Prez because, as you say, he could talk and he had a message.  Young people need their own Camelot and that would be the youthful but 55,56 year old Edwards with youngsters in the White House.  And please, boys, remember that there are a lot of women voters who love a man that loves his wife like John loves Elizabeth.  Oh and how Jon Tester loves his Sharla.  Watch for Tester to be a future VP.

by Feral Cat 2006-10-13 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: see you out there then

Edwards was supposed to deliver North Carolina from the VP slot? Come on. You guys throw out the term DLC likes it's some type of all-powerful exclusionary handicapping factor then you are base unaware of simple reality.

A VP is worth maybe 3 or 3.5 points in a state with a midlevel or high population. That's exactly what I predicted in North Carolina '04 and it's what happened. The partisan index from '00 to '04 moved something like 3.3 points in our favor. Edwards delivered exactly what he should have.

Our problem was not utilizing the VP choice strategically in states where that 3 or 3.5 points could have made all the difference, like Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004. Gore bypassed Bob Graham in 2000 and there really wasn't anyone from Ohio in 2004, unless Kerry reached for a congressman like Kucinich or Sherrod Brown. That's why it's vital to build our bench and get Democrats in high office in the key states. If we had a John Glenn minus 20 years serving as Ohio gov or senator in 2004, John Kerry would have identified him for VP, and Kerry would be president right now.

Anyone who condemns Edwards for not helping Kerry win a state in 2004 loses my attention immediately. You might as well blame the caddy for Mickelson blowing the US Open a few months ago.

by Gary Kilbride 2006-10-13 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: see you out there then

You guys throw out the term DLC likes it's some type of all-powerful exclusionary handicapping factor then you are base unaware of simple reality.

Are you one of those who defends the DLC without knowing what it really is?

Anyone who condemns Edwards for not helping Kerry win a state in 2004 loses my attention immediately.

Any VP candidate who delivers nothing loses my attention as a possible prez nominee. The way I see it, you get one shot to prove what you've got -- and Edwards had his and proved what he hasn't got. And that goes for everyone who ran in 04.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: see you out there then

This is silly.  VP's never "deliver" anything.  At best they help on the margins.  Name the last VP who helped electorally....some would say it hasn't happened since 1960 and LBJ.  

Your categorical dismissal of Edwards based on '04 is specious.  But you've been making a lot of ridiculous posts on this thread that should be called out.

by Andmoreagain 2006-10-13 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: see you out there then

you've been making a lot of ridiculous posts on this thread that should be called out.

You certainly proved nothing I've said to be wrong.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: see you out there then

Exactly:

Anyone who condemns Edwards for not helping Kerry win a state in 2004 loses my attention immediately. You might as well blame the caddy for Mickelson blowing the US Open a few months ago.
Anti-Edwards posters also pimp the favorable/unfavorable numbers on Edwards without any mention that exit polls indicated that Edwards would have held his seat easily.

FOX News exit poll

In the senate race, the Republicans gained the seat formerly held by John Edwards. If Edwards had run for reelection against Republican Richard Burr, it appears Edwards would have held on to his seat by a 53 percent -- 47 percent margin. Seven percent of those voters that would have voted for Edwards voted for Burr.
So a state that went 56 for Bush would have voted for Edwards 53.

Re 2004 there's also this:
Dems ask: Where's Edwards? Party insiders worry telegenic candidate is being held back

Watching the campaign of presidential candidate John Kerry roiled by missteps in recent weeks, many leading Democrats -- donors, insiders and party strategists -- have expressed increasing concern that Edwards, the 51- year-old former trial lawyer known for his ability to connect with voters on kitchen-table issues, has been relegated to small-potato status.

Some insiders are even more pointed, suggesting that Edwards has been hogtied by a Boston-based Kerry presidential campaign that has left him isolated and outside crucial decisions on policy, direction and campaign message.

by mbair 2006-10-14 09:59AM | 0 recs
These polls are useless

Presendential polls at this time are totally useless. They are only about name recognition. Lieberman was the leader in '04 at this stage.. sheesh...

by cmpnwtr 2006-10-13 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: These polls are useless

It's not only about name recognition.  Otherwise Edwards wouldn't be consistently (and greatly) outpolling Kerry.  Lieberman wasn't a frontrunner till Gore dropped out, right?

by Rob in Vermont 2006-10-13 09:50AM | 0 recs
My bad

Edwards and Kerry are not in fact polling that far apart according to the link NuevoLiberal provides below.

by Rob in Vermont 2006-10-13 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: These polls are useless

The difference in Lieberman and Hillary as name recognition front runners is that Lieberman had almost no money nor in-place political machine.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: These polls are useless

This 2002 Zogby poll had Gore far in front of the pack, at 36%. Besides Gore, no other potential candidate except HRC, at 18%, polled double digits.  Lieberman polled 4%.

There are clearly reasons other than name-recognition that Edwards is far out-polling Kerry.

by Rob in Vermont 2006-10-13 10:15AM | 0 recs
Edwards dropped 6 pts since July, Gore gained 4

This NH poll does stand out as an anamoly against every other poll with respect to Gore's numbers. Edwards has never beaten Gore in a primary matchup in any national poll that I have seen and only once or twice in hundreds of state polls since about a year ago.


Roughly speaking, here are the numbers, nationwide and in most state polls:
Hillary 33-35%, Gore 17-20%, Edwards 10-15%, Kerry 8-10%,

with Gore actually showing some signs of gaining as seen in the strategic vision state poll series linked above.

But, perhaps given the apparent handshaking based nature of NH politics, and Edwards having visited there 13 times since early 2005, perhaps the poll is not off the mark, after all.

I concur with Doug in that it is a respectable showing by Edwards nonetheless.

However, Edwards numbers in this poll series have fallen since July'06 and Gore's have risen:

- Feb'05:
HRC (28%), Kerry (25%), Edwards (18%), Clark (9%) (Gore was not included in that poll)

- Gore was in the July'06 poll, and they had:
HRC (30%), Kerry (17%), Edward (22%), Clark (6%), Gore (6%)

- Now:
HRC (30%), Kerry (9%), Edward (16%), Clark (4%), Gore (10%)

Please see this graphic of the trends in this poll (from the pdf file):

As the reader will note, Gore gained from July from 6% to 10%, and Edwards dropped from 22% to 16%. In other words, the Edwards-Gore gap shrank from 16 pts in July to 6 pts now. And, that's while Gore is not showing an interest (denying an interest but not ruling out a run).

To me, as a Gore supporter, the trend does suggest that the injection of some Gore presence in the race, as little as a show of interest on his part, will likely shift the numbers in Gore's favor, probably quite strongly.

Throw in a few campaign visits by Gore, the map could be completely turned upside down.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 10:00AM | 0 recs
Gore actually is losing ground with all voters.

Time Poll:

56% now say they wouldn't vote for Gore if he were the candidate and the election were held today, up from 52% in July.

Hillary also is slipping -- 53% wouldn't support her now, compared to 48% in July.

People evidently want to move forward, not bring back the Clintonistas.

by MeanBoneII 2006-10-13 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore actually is losing ground with all voters

That's an interesting poll.

It turns out that all the names polled had their "not support" numbers go up:

If my math is correct,

Wont' support (= probably not support + definitely not support) Totals

GOP:
----

Rudy: 35% (Jul), 40% (Oct)
Change = -5%

McCain: 34% (Jul), 47% (Oct)
Change =  -13%

Dems:
-----

Hillary: 48% (Jul), 53% (Oct)
Change = -5%

Kerry: 50% (Jul), 57% (Oct)
Change = -7%

Gore: 52% (Jul), 56% (Oct)
Change= -4%

So, of all people polled, Dems and Rep combined, Gore lost the least ground in this poll.

You know what I actually think based on this observation? Their October sample including a disproportionate number of skeptics for whatever reason.

------

Contrary to your thesis, Gore gained against both McCain and Giulaini in Fox News/Opinion Dynamics matchup poll. Yeah, we should take their polls with a pinch of salt, but pitting their polls against each other may not be too bad:

Gore improved his standing versus McCain (from a 12 point deficit in May to 7 points in August), whereas Hillary lost ground (from -4 to -8). Against Giuliani, Gore improved from -13 to -4, while Hillary also improved from -9 to -4.

From: Gore makes gains against McCain and Giuliani, by NeuvoLiberal, Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 12:09:39 PM PDT

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 12:05PM | 0 recs
Fuck the polls

Gore would kick ass and take names. Since when have we had a guy who already won?

I picture everyone quitting if he gets in. Talk about unifying the party. Whoa.

My fear is, like Warner, he doesn't need the aggravation.

by stevehigh 2006-10-13 12:31PM | 0 recs
Everyone would quit?

The other candidates would drop out if someone entered the race who previously couldn't seal the deal when he had incumbency, peace, prosperity, and now has 56% of all voters saying they wouldn't vote for him?

OK...

by MeanBoneII 2006-10-13 12:48PM | 0 recs
Edwards's unfavorables

Edwards's unfavorables are currently low because he hasn't been through the rightwing smear machine, but got good name ID from riding on the ticket (to which he contributed very little that one can see).

When people learn of his record (both lack of, as well as supporting the war when it was helpful, and ditching that support when it became inconvenient for him), his numbers will take a nose dive.

In Jan'04, both Kerry AND Edwards were beating Bush by 5-10 points mainly because of Bush's and the war's unpopularity (and Dean bashing Bush for over a year and half).

In the end, they failed to carry the momentum and win the election,despite matching Bush/Cheney in terms of money.

Edwards failed to deliver either North or South Carolina for the ticket. North Carolina was within 3-5% in both September annd October:

electoral-vote.com 2004 NC page.

Hence it could have been won. Edwards supporters claim that Kerry pulled from NC, which doesn't seem to be the case by looking at the graph.

Had Edwards delivered NC for Kerry, it would only have taken flipping any other state for Kerry/Edwards to have sealed a victory (252 they won + 15 (NC) + 3 additional EC votes would have given 270).

Also, some Edwards supporters claim that he was sent to rural areas, instead of campaigning in NC/SC. There is no confirmation or evidence that he indeed went to rural area as claimed. Suppose he did: then was he forced there, or did he volunteer to go there (as that could benefit his 2008 run better than spending time in his own backyard).

In fact, even if some bozo in the campaign decided not to campaign in NC, Edwards should have insisted otherwise, since the state was WINNABLE. Edwards ought to have had enough say in the campaign (next only to Kerry) to alter the campaign strategy as needed to secure a victory (after all, Kerry picked him so that he may improve his chances, and not some vanity purposes).

Gore actually trailed by double digits until the convention, because of Clinton's scandals (and intense media bashing beginning in mid 1999), but went ahead to win the popular vote (which Kerry/Edwards did not).


Analyses on the 2000 election:
1. Election 2000 overview, 11/02/2000, By Stuart Rothenberg/CNN.

2. Gore won Florida: democrats.com analysis.

3. 2000 election: A summary, by NeuvoLiberal.


by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 01:13PM | 0 recs
People vote for the top of the ticket...

...or vote against it, as was the case with Gore in Tennessee.

by MeanBoneII 2006-10-13 01:20PM | 0 recs
at least Gore

lost TN by only 3% (despite Clinton's scandal which pulling him down, especially heavily in red-states. He was probably trailing by 20 points in every southern state in 1999, thanks to Clinton, given that he was trailing by double digits in nationwide Gore v. Bush polls during that period).

On the other hand, even without Clinton's scandal adversely affecting them:


Kerry/Edwards lost in Edwards' home/adopted states:

1. NC by 12.6%
2. SC by 17%


both huge blowouts.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 01:52PM | 0 recs
Excuses, excuses...

Attempts to blame Clinton for Gore's failure, and Edwards for Kerry's, do not convince anyone. People vote for -- or against -- the candidate running for president. This doesn't seem like it should be such a difficult concept.

by MeanBoneII 2006-10-13 03:04PM | 0 recs
well

The "Clinton Fatigue" phenomenon has been repeatedly confirmed by many people and studies, including this April 99, Pew center study that anlyzed the polls in the pre-trials for the 2000 race:


Clinton Fatigue Undermines Gore Poll Standing

Released: April 17, 1999

Introduction and Summary

Personal image problems and fallout from Clinton administration scandals are contributing to Al Gore's declining favorability ratings and his poor showing in early horse race polls. As the vice president has inched closer to the Democratic presidential nomination, his favorability ratings have fallen and he has slipped further behind GOP frontrunner George W. Bush in the horse race polls.

While general election polls taken at this point in the cycle are more often wrong than right (see page 5), Gore's problems may be more enduring. Fewer Americans volunteer positive descriptions of Gore than did so just two years ago, and his favorability ratings are well below the 1987 ratings of Vice President Bush, who trailed the likely Democratic nominee at that time.

The patterns of response to questions about Gore may be more troublesome than the weak numbers themselves. Analysis of the latest Pew Research Center survey shows that attitudes toward Gore are more closely linked to Bill Clinton's mixed personal ratings than to his strong job approval. The opposite pattern was observed for Bush and Reagan 12 years ago.

The survey also finds that three-quarters of Americans say they are tired of the problems of the current administration -- an attitude more closely tied to voter choice than are views of Gore's likability or his sympathy for the problems of ordinary Americans.

These 1999 polls are the evidence of the scandal's negative impact on Gore:

A sampling of pre-season 1999 Polls
Gallup:


Date            Gore    Bush    Unsure
3/12-14/99   41   56   3   1,025   +- 3  
7/16-18/99   38   55   7   1,031   +
- 3
10/8-10/99   40   56   4   976   +- 3
12/20-21/99   42   53   5   892RV   +
- 4

The same was seen in hundreds of poll through out 1999: pollin report archive.

There is no question whatsoever that Gore was heavily handicapped in the race because of the scandal, and became an underdog in that race because of it. The media spins started around mid 1999, and that everyone knows about them.

He did a good job at the convention to pull roughly even and then win the popular vote. That's what basically happened in 2000.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 03:49PM | 0 recs
Stop posting nonsense

North Carolina was not winnable. Anyone who condemns Edwards for not helping Kerry win North Carolina is rank ignorant. That may sound harsh but it's actually understatement.

Bill Clinton didn't win North Carolina in '92 or '96 despite winning the national popular vote by roughly 5.5 and 8.5 points. And now you clowns are asserting a New England senator locked in a national popular vote scenario where he's TRAILING by a few points is supposed to carry North Carolina? It's pure Monty Python. A VP is worth a few points. How is that going to be enough when the partisan index in North Carolina and South Carolina is in the teens?

Here's my chart on North Carolina. I've used these numbers since '96. I know Chris has a table that goes back many cycles further than I did, but these numbers give you an idea about North Carolina's base partisanship on the presidential level. Unlike Virginia, there is no movement in our direction. Notice the extremely similar +13 GOP margins from '96 and '00. And that's precisely where it would have been in '04, minus Edwards on the ticket. He was worth the 3 to 3.5 points. Only an unaware optimist, or someone looking to unfairly bash Edwards after the fact, would have projected a higher number or asserted North Carolina was in play.

These numbers are how the state voted in comparison to the national popular vote margin:

North Carolina:
'88: Bush (57.97 - 41.71) = + 8.54% Republican
'92: Bush (43.44 - 42.65) = + 6.35% Republican
'96: Dole (48.73 - 44.04) = + 13.22% Republican
'00: Bush (56.03 - 43.20) = + 13.34% Republican
'04: Bush (56.02 - 43.58) = + 9.98% Republican

And another thing about Edwards: charisma, likability and looks = teflon. A Swift Boating campaign will never have significant impact against him for that reason. I host debate watching parties every presidential cycle. You'd be shocked how basic likability deflects the most severe charges from the other opponent. After the debate with Cheney, the women in my debate-watching group were gushing about how much they liked Edwards, how pleasant he seemed. I don't think personal qualities are as important in an open race as when trying to evict an incumbent, but we're foolish to surrender the likability aspect cycle after cycle and pretend it doesn't impact a vital few percent.

by Gary Kilbride 2006-10-13 03:32PM | 0 recs
Here is my evidence

Evidence:

In bold below, you will find all the polls showing NC within 6 points (Zogby polls in italics, just to separate):


Date     Pollster    Kerry     Bush     Nader
Oct 31     Survey USA     45       53       0
Oct 30     Rasmussen    43     53     0
Oct 26     Mason-Dixon    43     52     0
Oct 26     Research 2000    45     51     0
Oct 24     Survey USA    44     54     0

Oct 20     Tel Opinion Research (R)    40     48     2
Oct 19     Mason-Dixon    43     51     0
Oct 17     Survey USA    47     50     0
Oct 18     Zogby    47     51     0
Oct 4     Survey USA    45     52     0
Oct 6     Zogby    47     50     0
Sep 28     Mason-Dixon    43     52     0
Sep 27     Public Opin. Strat. (R)    41     53     0
Sep 29     Rasmussen    42     54     0
Sep 22     Research 2000    44     50     0
Sep 17     Zogby    47     52     0
Sep 16     American Res. Group    44     49     0
Sep 16     Rasmussen    42     54     0
Sep 14     Rasmussen    41     54     0
Sep 13     Rasmussen    43     53     0
Sep 12     Rasmussen    43     53     0
Sep 8     Survey USA    46     50     0
Sep 10     Rasmussen    44     53     0
Sep 9     Rasmussen    42     55     0
Aug 15     Survey USA    45     51     0
Aug 11     Research 2000    45     48     0
Jul 26     Survey USA    44     51     0
Jul 14     Research 2000    44     49     0
Jul 13     Mason-Dixon    45     48     1

Jul 11     Gallup    41     56     1
Jun 30     Rasmussen    42     49     0
Jun 16     Research 2000    40     46     4
May 17     Mason-Dixon    41     48     3

Data source: electoral-vote.com

Commonsense: if the race is within 6 points in June, July, August, September and Otober AND the running mate is from that state, that state is winnable, and the VP candidate should be out in his home state trying to secure it for the ticket, espcially when it had 15 electoral votes at stake.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Here is my evidence

I would like you to look at the June 11- Aug 11 block from above, esp. the Mason-Dixon poll showing Kerry/Edwards within 3 points, and explain to me why  NC was not winnable.

And, BTW, I think I found a small error in your calculation:

00: Bush (56.03 - 43.20) = + 13.34% Republican
>>'04: Bush (56.02 - 43.58) = + 9.98% Republican<<

It should be:
'04: Bush (56.02 - 43.58) = + 12.44% Republican

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 04:13PM | 0 recs
Edwards was worth the 0.9% point

(i.e. the difference 13.34-12.44) to use your own words and logic. Fair enough?

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 04:26PM | 0 recs
You're being disingenuous.

Kerry, not Edwards, opted not to respond to the Swift Boat ads in the critical late August-September period, and Kerry, not Edwards, opted not to focus campaign efforts in N.C., along with a lot of other states.

Previous general election results, not polls from the summer when the campaign hasn't hit full steam, show what results you should logically expect in a state.

by MeanBoneII 2006-10-13 05:44PM | 0 recs
Oct 17, 2004: Survey USA, NC: Kerry(47%)/Bush(50%)

So, it was within 3 points well AFTER the SBVT thing happened (and all the debates were over), and the state could still have been won.

"Kerry, not Edwards, opted not to focus campaign efforts in N.C., along with a lot of other states."

If there is any evidence not from Edwards' camp/supporters corroborating this claim, I haven't seen it. Is there?

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 06:19PM | 0 recs
Then you don't understand how campaigns are run.

You think the VP nominee calls the shots about how the campaign is run? That explains a lot.

Again, that poll means what? That the Repugs have a much better GOTV operation in NC than Dems do? That people couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kerry once they got in the booth? That Kerry shouldn't have abandoned the Southern states, even though he said during the primaries that it was his plan to do so?

I'm stumped as to how you blame the difference from this poll and the actual results on Edwards, except that you just want it to be his fault. It's not like he was at the top of the ticket and lost his home state...

General election results from previous elections tell you what you should expect in actual voting far better than some poll does.

by MeanBoneII 2006-10-13 06:33PM | 0 recs
If I were the nominee,

I would most certainly expect to be an integral part of the strategy team. Doesn't mean that I have to call the shots, but it does mean that my case gets to be heard by everyone. I'd abide by the nominee's final word and his veto of the decisions where there is disagreement, of course.

And no, I have no desire to run for a political office, ever :)

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 07:58PM | 0 recs
No desire to run? Hmm...

That sounds strangely familiar... :)

by MeanBoneII 2006-10-13 08:44PM | 0 recs
asdf

That's pretty funny. worth an uprate.

On my own, I sent them tips about the economy, the debt, the falling dollar etc, but not a peep from Kerry on those in the debates. That sucked.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 07:48PM | 0 recs
My thinking about Gore

My original post was just a blanket assertion. No wonder you thought I was an asshole.

Here is a little more food for thought:


  1. The polls will zoom when Gore announces.
  2. He wasn't an incumbent. Most candidates--Nixon, Humphrey, Mondale among them--have had a hard time coming out of that slot.
  3. Notwithstanding the outcome of the 2000 race, he ran quite strongly, wouldn't you agree?
  4. He has been through a national campaign, which is also a point in your guy's favor although I don't see any tangible evidence that helped John Kerry.
  5. I like Edwards, but I think we should go with the varsity.

You are asserting that, hypothetically, someone else would have done better in 2000. You don't know that. And you are asserting that, hypothetically, Edwards will get lots of votes.

Gore is not a hypothesis but a proven vote-getting machine with the resume to pass anybody's gravitas test.

I do not count Edwards out. He's got a certain magic and at least some experience running for national office.

Finally, these are just my opinions, which as you know, are like rectums. Everyone has one.

by stevehigh 2006-10-13 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: My thinking about Gore

I like Gore also. Tough call but IMO Gore would have a slightly better chance to win Ohio or Florida than Edwards. I don't think any of our candidates can take Virginia unless Warner is VP. Unless we have a sizable edge in the popular vote, but in that case many other states fall in line.

Edwards has likability but some men seem to detect a bit of phony in him. That's what I've noticed from posting on balanced political sites.

Another thing about Gore, similar to Hillary: he has already been Swift Boated. A national figure for more than a decade, so those two may have high unfavorables but they won't go higher. If anything, the favorable/unfavorable ratio would improve slightly during a campaign.

by Gary Kilbride 2006-10-13 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Fuck the polls

steve, please join us at the Gore Portal (by registering there; mention here if do register). Let's draft this Gore guy and get him to kick some ass as you say :)

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards dropped 6 pts since July, Gore gained

But Gore isn't running. I respect your position that you love and support Gore at the expense of all other prospective candidates, but he's not running. K? If he really wanted it then he would have gone for it in '04.

I was personally very disappointed by his choice to sit it out in '04. I was dying to see a rematch and wanted to put the real President in the Oval Office, but he doesn't want it. I think Gore is willing to do anything he can to raise awareness on the enviro-issue including tantalize the blogosphere with a possible candidacy. More power to him, but he ain't running.

by mbair 2006-10-14 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton
Sen. Clinton  - cannot win in 2008
John Edwards - 2nd Best choice but not a 'hands-down' winner like Clark
Al Gore      - like Al Gore but too much excess baggage and no to very little cross over Republicans
John F. Kerry - cannot win in 2008
Joe Biden    - forge this bozo
Wesley Clark - 1st with BEST CHANCE of winning against McCain or any other Republican candidate
Bill Richardson - - cannot win in 2008
by km4 2006-10-13 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Sen. Clinton  - cannot win in 2008

If GWB can be become president for term terms, ANYBODY can.

And unlike those other Democrats, Hillary actually has operatives in the corporate media to carry water and spin for her.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

And just in general -- if there's one meme I wish would die an ugly, violent death -- it's any discussion about "not electable".

Nothing ticks me off more (and see above... I'm certainly no fan of Hillary).

I sure as hell wish people would start supporting the "right" candidate, rather than the candidate we think is "right" for everyone else.

Look - none of us here (or almost none of us here) are getting paid for any of this.   So what say we leave the CW germination and broad-brush analysis on who's electable to the chattering classes and focus on the best candidate for America, not the one our amateur analysis says will play best in Peoria.

by zonk 2006-10-13 12:20PM | 0 recs
Amen, brother...sister

This country needs to actually try to move into the 21st Century instead of being stuck in the 1960's.  Whoever can bring a vision and lead a movement will be my pick.  I want someone who will fight for the middle class.  Without a middle class, there cannot be a democracy.  We all know we are living in a corporate fascist state.  We must put our own house back together again and then show the world that we can lead again and not just bully.  We need a person with a big heart and well as with a big brain.  And courage.  Courage of an ordinary American to stand up to power like Whistleblowers and brave journalists like Olbermann and great satirists like Jon Stewart and fire fighters and police. And the Atticus Finchs.  And mothers.  Who will stand up for them?  The Republican Party was and should be the party of rich old men.  The Democratic Party is for the rest of us.  They may have the money, but there are more of us.  

by Feral Cat 2006-10-13 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

I've only heard one political slogan that was stupider than "Electable" and that was "Where's the beef?" in 1984

Unfortunately, in both instances Democratic primay voters swallowed them whole and rewarded the perpetrators with their nomination.

That's why I have to believe that Hillary is a shoe-in. She's got all the money, and her media operatives will make sure she controls the message (and they're probably thinking up something even stupider than "where's the beef" right now.)

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 01:47PM | 0 recs
The application was stupid, not the idea

How is a blase New England senator most electable against an incumbent? Look at the challengers who have knocked out presidential incumbents in the TV era -- Reagan and Clinton. How does John Kerry fit in?

I got so fed up of posting on DU and elsewhere that Edwards fit that Reagan/Clinton mold more snugly than Kerry did. Granted, Edwards wasn't an ideal candidate but if you're going to embrace electability at least apply it to the proper candidate.

I posted in early 2003 that John Kerry was "just good enough to get you beat." Regarding 2008, I think it's too early for any woman to be elected, not merely Hillary. The pivotal states will reject Hillary. Start naming all the women elected to major statewide offices in Ohio, Florida and Virginia. It won't take long.

by Gary Kilbride 2006-10-13 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The application was stupid, not the idea

Since I think the entire concept of "electablility" is a canard, I won't comment on Edwards being that.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

a large percentage of voters have always voted on electability.  It wasn't the "slogan", it was a perception.

by Andmoreagain 2006-10-13 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

Yes. "electability" is a canard that will always be with us.

No one can know which candidate other people will vote for any more than they can know which stock others will buy. It's just a guess and one's is as good as another's.

People should just support and vote for the candidate who best represents their viewpoints. If everybody did that the best candidate would be chosen every time.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

"Hillary actually has operatives in the corporate media to carry water and spin for her."

what are you smoking?  Do you have X-ray vision as well?

by Andmoreagain 2006-10-13 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

You aren't very observant. When ABC ran that show blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11 his and Hillary's operatives were all over the media denouncing it and defending him. They got it dropped from going into classrooms and had it discredited before it even aired. The clinton's have a very powerful and influential media presence.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 05:05PM | 0 recs
Did the bloggers' drive to kill PT911

help much towards that end (in addition to what his operatives did) help much? You know, all those diaries and drives to get people to call/boycott ABC/Disney.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Did the bloggers' drive to kill PT911

That helped a lot. But for a week every time I turned on the TV or read a news story, Clinton's people were all over the place telling his and their side of the story. Usually Democrats don't even get more than a cursory say in such matters. And let's not forget Hillary's tryst with Ruppert Murdoch not long ago.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

The "baggage" you refer to in the case of Al Gore was built on fictitious premises. When the facts are presented (to the adequate degree, which is the key), as for example this:


Al Gore and the Internet

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President.

No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.


any attempts to spin/smear him can actually turned into a net positive for Al Gore, because the facts tend to be firmly on his side.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

I think it's dangerous for guys like Tester to label Hillary a liberal... it gives credence to right-wing whackos like Limbaugh who would have you think she's a flaming red socialist.

The fact is Hillary is very centrist - and center/right on a lot of issues.

If Tester doesn't want Hillary around his campaign, all the better for him. She could just be poison in Montana. However, he shouldn't be implying it's because she's liberal. He should just say he wants to stick with people from the region or something.

by Ryepower12 2006-10-13 10:27AM | 0 recs
I don't support Hillary for 2008

at this point (eventhough she was my #2 a year half ago, and Richardson was #3, both behind Gore), I agree with you.

It took guts on Tester's part to speak his mind (and I laud him for that), but such public criticism by a serious player should probably be postponsed at least until after the midterms, and, furthermore, we shouldn't propagate the demonization of the "liberal" label and help Limbaughs and Hannities of the Republican netherworld in that process.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't support Hillary for 2008

Just wanted to clarify on one point. I am decidedly more knowledgeable of politics and politicians than I was year and half ago, thanks to the blogs.

And hence, my preferences for 2008 have dramatically changed since then (except that Gore remains at the top, and with much solidified conviction behind that choice).

Should Gore decide not to run, I am not quite sure whom I'd support, but I do  have some favorites among the possible prospects.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-13 02:43PM | 0 recs
Wes Clark is strong and under-rated

Folks, Wes Clark is quiety building a national organization with very very committed people. He is spending lots of time in Iowa. He is a non-politician who has learned some good political skills. His resume outclasses the pack and the national security credentials are bar none. Whether you agreed with Kosovo or not, it was a NATO operation and the US won and stopped genocide, brought down the fascist Milosevic without the loss of a single U.S soldier. His views on issues are largely progressive. He has said publicly that the U.S. must eventually adopt a single payer universal coverage in health care. Name recognition will come. Right now he is doing his training time taking on the Fox propagandists and winning. Good prep for a presidential campaign.

by cmpnwtr 2006-10-13 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

John Edwards can say wahtever he wants about the war, poverty, N Korea or whatever else that pop into his head. He has to face facts: Clinton's machine and money are unstoppable. Remeber, this American politics and money is still everything.

Sure I diagree with Hillary Clinton flag burning, video games, and the war in Iraq but I still think that she has the best chance of taking back the WH for the Dems. in 2008. Her voting record is more simliar to Feingold, so that's a good sign. Who cares if there's a Bush-Clinton monarchy?  

by bsavage 2006-10-13 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

As he should!

Why?

Let me answer that with a question.

Do you think Joe Liarmann would be leading Ned Lamont if Hillary and Bill were campaigning for, not just giving money as she has done, Ned?

Another question: Who is the Democratic candidate for Senate for CT?

Until the Hill shows me she is a Democrat not a  Republican like her husband was....

Nothing from me but attack, attack attack.
.

by Pericles 2006-10-13 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton
I really hope it won't be Hillary.  All the news ever talks about is Hilary.  They think she is the ONLY democrat.  They hype and hype and I just don't see it.
I see alot of people who would vote for her if she was the nominee as the lesser of but, as for the actual first choice, naw!  
I cringe whenever they gush over her.  Has anyone just sat and listened to her when she is speaking?  Not in the Senate but, out in the real world.  She is opposite of Bill.  She puts you to sleep.  
by vwcat 2006-10-13 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Jon Tester dismisses Hillary Clinton

I've seen tape. She's got time to get it together, but you're right. It's pretty ugly. Bill had some problems early on, recall his nominating speech in '88? His biggest applause line was, "in conclusion." If the speech was really good then the delegates in the hall would have received it better.

by mbair 2006-10-14 10:17AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads