Display:


rankings (2.00 / 0)

Here's my sense of the rankings among the netroots in the greater Chicago region:

  1. Feingold
  2. Obama
  3. Clark
  4. Schweitzer
  5. Spitzer
  6. Richardson
  7. Bob Graham
  8. Mark Warner
  9. Al Gore
  10. Hackett
  11. Edwards
  12. Reid
  13. Corzine

Hillary Rodham Clinton might be able to put together a DLC/media juggernaut, but I doubt it. Granite Staters are an unpredictable bunch.

Feingold should do well in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 04:33:29 PM EST

Re: rankings (3.00 / 1)

Carl,

You had 13 democrats who you "feel" are the top picks in "your region" of chicago & Hillary Clinton does not make it to the top 13????

Man, I respect your dislike for the lady, but if you're going to make up 13 favorites of netroots midwesterners for 2008 & not have Hillary Clinton in there while having people like Corzine, Hackett, Spitzer, and Reid for President of the United States, -all ahead of Clinton-I'd like some of that stuff your smoking.

let's get real now~I'm not a Clinton supporter but to proclaim that she is not in the top 5, worse not even in the top 13 of presidential favorites of our party shows either a total lack of political knowledge or you are simply in TOTAL DENIAL due to your disdain of Hillary.

by labanman on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 05:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rankings (none / 0)

You are invited to vote.
Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 06:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rankings (none / 0)

The poll at MyDD confirms that head-to-head HRC beats practically nobody.
Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 11:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rankings (3.00 / 1)

I voted for Hillary somewhere beneath "Other" and "Undecided" along with Kerry, Biden, Rendell, Bayh and Warner.

Weren't we supposed to use all sixteen spots? Why would I put any of those candidates about "Other" or "Undecided"? That's just throwing away your vote.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 08:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rankings (none / 0)

Bob Graham? Mr. boring I-write-journals?  I know people are obsessed with Florida but why not make him a doddering VP candidate and just keep him in Florida and don't let him campaign anywhere else.
by DaveB on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 05:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rankings (2.00 / 1)

Graham is a fiscal hawk that knows intel and opposed the Iraq War.

If he packaged himself better, he could get a shot.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 06:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rankings (2.00 / 1)

I'm still upset Kerry didn't pick Graham as his running mate. I think we'd be looking at a very different world if he had.
by Jorge McJunk on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 02:42:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rankings (3.00 / 1)

I don't buy it.  Edwards was the best choice he could have made.  Kerry defeated Kerry.  The Republicans (and Diebold) only helped.
by zaimokoya on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rankings (none / 0)

Dear Mr. Nyberg, I see that you have Paul Hackett down in your list of (presumably) potential 2008 nominees:

# Feingold
# Obama
# Clark
# Schweitzer
# Spitzer
# Richardson
# Bob Graham
# Mark Warner
# Al Gore
---------->> # Hackett <<------------------
# Edwards
# Reid
# Corzine

So, would you care to kindly explain to us first (before anointing your personal preferences on an entire region of voters): Exactly when did Paul Hackett become a viable presidential candidate for 2008?

Get Real.

Neo

ps: Mind you, I really admire Paul Hackett, and hope to see him reach great heights, but that would have to happen over time, and he'd have to earn his way there, needless to say.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:48:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]