Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll

Nothing is certain in 2008:
A new Iowa Poll conducted for The Des Moines Register shows that Edwards, the runner-up in the Iowa Democratic caucuses two years ago and a frequent visitor to the state since then, is the choice of 30 percent of Iowans who say they are likely to take part in the January 2008 caucuses.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York follows on Edwards' heels with 26 percent in the Iowa Poll.

Experts say it's the first poll showing anyone besides Clinton as the preferred Democrat in the race for the White House.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who used his victory in the 2004 caucuses as a springboard to the Democratic presidential nomination that year, is a distant third in the Iowa Poll with 12 percent.

Vilsack, despite getting good marks in previous polls for the job he's done in two terms as governor, receives relatively tepid support from his home state in the Register's new presidential poll, taken May 29 to June 1. Ten percent of likely caucus participants say that if the caucuses were held today, they would vote for him.

Five other potential Democratic presidential candidates listed in the poll bring up the rear with no more than 3 percent each.

The poll has a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.
Polls like this, and the earlier one on the Senate race in Connecticut, are just the tip of the iceberg. We saw it in Montana, and we saw it building in places like IL-06. From now on, Democratic primaries are not going to be determined only by the typical strategy of raising early money or early buzz from a finite pool of donors / media and using that edge to knock other candidates out. With a newly energized, people-powered progressive movement, increasingly the key to success in Democratic primaries is going to be be determined by which candidate or candidates can inspire that movement and release its potential energy and resources. Edwards is one of the few candidates right now who I see with the potential to do just that. If other candidates instead decide that this new movement does not matter and focus on building an organization designed to procure the largest share of what they perceive to be a fixed pool of Democratic resources, not only will they not win the nomination, they may not even be significant players in the nomination battle.



Display:


Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

I feel sorry for Tom Vilsack.

Looking at Mark Warner's success, he had to try to keep up with the other DLC, "anti-Hillary," red state governor.

But with his handpicked successor losing in the primary and weak poll showings, it is quite evident that Tom Vilsack is no Mark Warner.


by musa on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:37:49 AM EST

Let us note that Gore was not included (3.00 / 1)

in this poll.


by NuevoLiberal on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let us note that Gore was not included (none / 0)

I am convinced that if Gore enters the race he will suck a lot of oxygen. But 2008 is a long ways away and I hope that the netroots remain focused on the here and now - winning a Dem majority in the House.

This Nov is not a done deal as we saw with CA-50. Despite all FUBAR the Repub base will turnout and provide a solid vote total for the Repubs. The Dems continue to be mostly apathetic and their turnout is not of the high percentage required to swing close races in Repub leaning districts.


by ab initio on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:09:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (3.00 / 1)

Yeah, this is kind of a cruel excercise for Vilsack.  I wonder though, what else is an ambitious pol in his position to do?  Wait for a VP pick?  Hope Grassley retires (or really risk it all and challenge him directly)?  It's too bad, because from what I've heard he seems to have been a pretty good governor.

Anyhow, this poll doesn't surprise me, really.  Edwards has already made a ent in the Iowa caucuses and he's spent considerible time in the state ever since (recently lending significant support to Culver's gubernatorial bid).  Hillary hasn't been a presence in the state at all: she knows that she has the superior organization and is going to rely on that to bring home the bacon.  In other words, she knows she's the frontrunner and she's acting like it.  Edwards and Warner and all the rest need to build up support the hard way, Clinton has the luxury of worrying about a political daujob.


by Ryan Anderson on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:53:30 AM EST

Can you say "name recognition"? (3.00 / 3)

Who are the only people with double-digit support in this poll?

John Edwards: Vice Presidential nominee in 2004.

Hillary Clinton: Former First Lady of the United States of America and the already-crowned Queen of the Democrats (at least according to the Mainstream Media).

John Kerry: Presidential nominee in 2004.

Tom Vilsack: Governor of the state where the poll was taken.

This poll is meaningless. The 2004 nominee is someone the average American hasn't even heard of yet.


by craverguy on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:11:09 AM EST

Re: Can you say "name recognition"? (none / 0)

Bla, I meant "2008 nominee."


by craverguy on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:11:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

FUCK IOWA! (none / 0)

Thats all I got to say.


by Pravin on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:14:55 AM EST

The Insanity Definition (none / 0)

Here we go again....

and that's all I to say.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:42:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

The inspiring candidates are Gore (if he runs), Clark, Feingold and Edwards as I see it.

Mark Warner is basically a new, less liberal, John Kerry. Hillary is unelectable (perhaps you could say that for Feingold too, I'm not sure) and inspires noone.

Edwards would be a terrific choice.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:33:39 AM EST

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Please can we stop all this unelectable nonsense. Respect the electorate. They decide.

Sure say you prefer Edwards, Gore or whoever but both Feingold and HRC are electable under certain conditions - like depending upon the republican candidate, their ability to turn out the vote, the state of the war..........


by kundalini on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:43:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Please can we stop all this unelectable nonsense. Respect the electorate. They decide.

You're right. Vote your own conscience and let others do the same. Whover wins will be the best nominee.

The last guy who got the nomination based on "eletability" couldn't even get himself elected.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

It's funny how you call Feingold "possibly" unelectable, whenever Edwards lost as VP and when Gore lost the presidency himself. But somehow neither of those facts make them "unelectable".


by KainIIIC on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:47:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore won the popular vote (none / 0)

the most recent Democrat to do so. And he probably won the electoral college too.


by NuevoLiberal on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore won the popular vote (none / 0)

Couldn't even win over his homestate, and still probably couldn't if he ran again...

my point stands.


by KainIIIC on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore won the popular vote (none / 0)

Couldn't even win over his homestate, and still probably couldn't if he ran again...

The same must be said of Edwards.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore needed 270 electoral college votes (none / 0)

nationwide. getting them from TN or elsewhere was immaterial. He won his "home country" by half a million votes, after Clinton handicapped him to double digit deficits with his scandal and impeachment. Your point never stood.


by NuevoLiberal on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:46:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whaaaat? (none / 0)

Can you explain to me how Mark Warner is anything like John Kerry?

Other than having a long face and big teeth?


by musa on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:44:17 AM EST

Re: Whaaaat? (3.00 / 1)

As I've commented elsewhere and repeat here, it's probably Warners taking on rightwing talking points especially re Iran  and Venezuela:

If Warner is serious about working with us then proof will come in making some serious adjustments in his take on Iran and Venezuela. Right now he is on the Republican path of aggressive posturing, the same one Democrats wrongly took with Iraq. Iran is not a threat and Venezuela is an opportunity if handled correctly.

See this DailyKos article "Mark Warner on Iran and Venezuela". Warner has some serious rethinking to do to get into synch with progressive thought and not falling for the right-wing traps.


Jeff Wegerson - PrairieStateBlue
by wegerje on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:37:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

This is so funny. Yes I am a huge liberal.  Yes I belive in our grassroots movement.  Yes I believe in Tester, Ned, and so on.  But Let's look at the polls. Since November Hillary has increased her lead in every primary poll and still leads everyone by about 20 in EVERY poll. In the general against everyone except McCain and Rudy she beats and has increased her lead. Agaisnt McCain and Rudy she has cut their lead from around 15 down to anywhere from 5-8. Hillary's approval numbers in almost every poll have been increasing. This is the first poll to show Hillary not leading. It's clearly an outlier. Edwards has no chance in the primary. Once a loser always a loser. Edwards is only polling so high in Iowa because he visits all the time, and Vilsack is taking votes away from Hillary. The second Hillary steps foot in Iowa and runs a commercial Iowa is hers. But it's just so funny to watch all of you go nuts, how Hillary is losing momentum. That Hillary is in a downward spiral. I'm going to post one poll as recent as June fourth.

Gallup Poll. June 1-4, 2006. N=447 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 5.
"Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008, or if you would support someone else. . . ." Names rotated
%
Hillary Rodham Clinton

36

Al Gore

16

John Edwards

12

John Kerry

11

Wesley Clark

4

Joe Biden

4

Russ Feingold

3

Mark Warner

2

Tom Daschle

-

Tom Vilsack

-

Someone else

3

None (vol.)

2

Unsure

5

Oh yeah Hillary is in real trouble, I think the nomination is slipping away from her(Sarcasm).

Well here's some more polls to prove my point.

http://pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc


by Democratsin08 on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:29:47 AM EST

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Ok hate to break it to you but Hillary is no Joementum.  The media loves her along with McCain.  The blogosphere is NOT strong enough to take her down.  She has enough money to take care of anything the blogs can raise.  Everyone is betting on Gore to take her down.  Gore is NOT running and he will NOT run.  He's already called fundraisers and staffers and told them to feel free to go to other candidates.  Warner and Feingold still are only polling around 5%.  Hillary has won the primary.  As soon as we all accept that, the sooner we can unite behind her and beat the Reps in 08.


by Democratsin08 on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:44:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

The media loves Hillary? What planet do you live on?
If they temporarly build her up it's only so that they can enjoy taking her down again.

No one is enthusiastic about Hillary.

"Hillary has won the primary.  As soon as we all accept that, the sooner we can unite behind her and beat the Reps in 08."

Ever heard of the idea of "democracy"?


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:47:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not her exactly (none / 0)

but they love the story of Hillary, the tale of a betrayed wife clawing her way back into Hubby's old job. Plus the MSM is so lazy, it can't stand introducting new characters. Much easier to recycle the same old, same old.

I actually admire their creativity. Amazing that they've managed to keep her so much "in the news" and top of mind when she's done NOTHING the past six years but call for a few hundred thousand more troops in Iraq and stand up against those awful flag-burners!


by Matt in NYC on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:50:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (3.00 / 1)

He's already called fundraisers and staffers and told them to feel free to go to other candidates.

Gore can raise a lot of dough the moment he steps in. He will easily outraise Howard Dean, who raised $50M in 2004. Gore is probably the only potential nominee that can enter very late and still raise the most money.

Gore is NOT running and he will NOT run.

Is that the morning prayer at Hillary'08 HQ? :)


by NuevoLiberal on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (3.00 / 1)

There are 3(or 4, depending on if you include him) potential candidates who have a nearly 100% name ID: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and (If you include him) Al Gore. So of course any poll will show these ahead of the rest of the contenders. I think one of the things unreported in the MSM media is that in Strategic Vision statewide polls, Feingold is stomping John Kerry in states like Washington and Pennsylvania, while Mark Warner is winning in states like Georgia and Florida.

These polls do offer us one thing though, that of the people with 100% name ID, it shows that someone like John Kerry has virtually no shot at the nomination. While this Iowa poll is the exception (showing Edwards garner just about as much as he got in the actual primary in 2004), other shows Edwards with a dismal performance despite having a ~95% name ID, so while Edwards may be better off than Kerry, he still has plenty of ways to go.


by KainIIIC on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:57:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Feingold is seemingly known to at least 44% of Iowans in that poll (because 56% had no opinion, meaning 100-56=44 DID know him enough to have an opinion). Sure, there are variations in name ID itself, but Russ does have the advantage being from a neighboring state of IA.

In any case, 44% (i.e roughly 9 out of 20) did know him, and therefore, if we scale up his 3% showing by even a generous factor of 3, we'd only get 9% for him (if he had 100% name ID), which pales in comparison to Edwards' 30%.

I'd take Feingold over Edwards in a hearbeat, overall, because I see Edwards as a calculating opportunist (a personal opinion, grounded in observed facts).

But, I think you need to be honest enough to admit that this poll is a strong showing by Edwards.


by NuevoLiberal on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:49:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

There's no doubt that it is - I was primarily pointing to the monthly Strategic Vision polls that show Edwards only a few % points ahead of Kerry or Feingold.

But I still stand by the claim that most of Edwards' support in this poll came in large part from the people who voted for him in 2004, which amounted to 32%.

Another interesting thing about Feingold is, except for 4 100% name IDers, Feingold had the highest "strongly favorables", though not the best overall favorable-unfavorable. I guess that shows that he has a very high support base with a lot of people who claim to know "a little" about him, but really probably wouldn't know him apart from McCain-Feingold or the Censure resolution.


by KainIIIC on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold has also been posturing (none / 0)

quite a fair bit since he started exploring a presidential run.

Eg. his inconsequential censure move, and more improtantly, going hawkish on Iran: Feingold: "We must never take any option off the table, because the danger is real. But we need to make every effort to negotiate, and it doesn't look like that's being done." Link, compared to his efforts to pull of of Iraq in the early stages of Gulf War, etc.

But, he's had at least 13 years of rather straight shooting senate career before Dec'2005, so I'd prefer him over Edwards (who co-sponsored the war resolution).


by NuevoLiberal on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look at Hillary's favorable numbers too (none / 0)

In the polls I have seen she is no lower than 47 or 48% and that is with a large swath of this nation really only hearing about her from the say anything for money guys on AM radio.   She is over 50% in many.

Something tells me a 40 million dollar add blitz could push her numbers into the high 50s.

Oh and I love these folks that like to point out that 40% of Americans say they would never vote for her.   BIG DEAL.   With this partisan divide that we currently have in this nation that could be said of anyone.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Edwards put a lot of time and money into Iowa leading up to 04. He purchased computers for county committees and spent quite a bit of time meeting with county committees.

I am sure he is doing more of the same now.


by sndeak on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:54:29 AM EST

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

The poll that should really worry Hillary is the one from last week showing that she's in a statistical dead heat with Al Gore among NEW YORK DEMOCRATS if they both ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

The most interesting finding in the poll you just cited, is not so much how Edwards is beating Hillary, but that Tom Vilsack is so LOW in the poll.

Frankly, I think Hillary's candidacy is going to crash and burn epically.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:21:42 AM EST

On a more serious note.... (3.00 / 1)

I think these polls are good because it gives the candidates we prefer their work cut out. Like it or not, this state set the tone in 2004, and they will probably set the tone in 2008 in case they prefer one of the MSM backed candidates because the media spin and dem establishment will roll over any debate we would want to have at that time if they can get Iowa and NH to vote their way.


by Pravin on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:06:02 AM EST

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

I'm willing to give Edwards a look.  He has progressive instincts.  He just needs to show he knows how to draw blood, and get past the Howdy Doody thing.  If he can do that, and recognize his best possible constituency is us, and not the DC media/consultant class, then he could go very far.


by Pachacutec on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:58:01 AM EST

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

    Obviously, this is way too early to have any real significance. On the other hand, the caucuses are only 19 months away.

    I think the Democratic race will quickly come down to Sen. Clinton, if she runs, and one main opponent. If Edwards could win or run a close second in Iowa, he'd have a big leg up on being the main opponent. And I think Edwards would have won last time if General Clark hadn't been in the race.

    This also indicates that Vilsack will not push everyone out of Iowa, as Harkin did in 1992.


by Ron Thompson on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:32:57 PM EST

Earth to "Democrats-08" (none / 0)

How does Pluto look close up?  Hillary Clinton, should she get get the nomination, will lose to ANY Republican by 25 points.  For God's sake -- this is the United States!  Will this country elect a woman ... with more baggage than Samsonite -- during a "war"?  And Hillary "Let Me Consult Some Polls Before I Answer That" Clinton, of all people?  Just to illustrate, there are 30 people in my office.  25 of them wouldn't vote for a Republican if you threatened them with Gitmo.  AT LEAST HALF WILL SIT IT OUT IF HILLARY IS OUR NOMINEE.  The best news I've seen in weeks is that she is second to Edwards in Iowa, in a poll where name recognition plays no part.  "Unite to beat the GOP," with Hillary.  Okay.  Bring me back a picture of Saturn's rings ...


by tuffie on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:50:01 PM EST

I doubt your unscienfic poll (none / 0)

25 are strong enough Democrats that they wouldn't even consider a Republican?   Yet these people (many of them anyway, according to you) would all of a sudden ditch their vote if Hillary Clinton was the nominee?

I find that hard to believe.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:14:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I doubt your unscienfic poll (none / 0)

Not me. Hillary is hated by blue collar workers who see her as elitist and pro-management.

I'm a blue collar FEDERAL GOVERNMENT worker. If she can't get the vote of my fellow workers, who is she going to get.

BTW, the vets voted to a man against Kerry. They hated Bush but either hated Kerry throwing his medals away more, or thought he wanted every side of all questions, i.e. no bottom.


by antiHyde on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:53:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I doubt your unscienfic poll (none / 0)

Again, I have to disagree with you, and this time I have polling on my side.

Vets did not vote "to a man" against Kerry.  Granted, Bush won those claiming to have served in the military by a wide margain (57 to 41).

I offer a link to exit polling:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/r esults/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html


by dpANDREWS on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I stand by it (none / 0)

It's a small office in suburban Philadelphia, a very educated staff, many attorneys ... strong Democrats and liberals ... and they simply do not like HRC and know she cannot win.  


by tuffie on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:12:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And this means what .....? (none / 0)

Who cares?


by dpANDREWS on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I doubt your unscienfic poll (none / 0)

I am referring to the vets I work with, not some poll.


by antiHyde on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 09:26:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold barely registered in the poll (none / 0)

Maybe some people will stop beating the already dead horse named Russ.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:12:02 PM EST

Re: Feingold barely registered in the poll (none / 0)

Maybe some people will stop beating the already dead horse named Russ

Polls this far out are all about name recognition. That's why Joementum topped the pre-2004 polls. Not yet being known by a few Iowans doesn't make Russ dead.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DLC anchor (none / 0)

The DLC candidates (Hillary Clinton, Tom Vilsack, Mark Warner, and Evan Bayh) combine to to hit a DLC ceiling of 41%.

Tier II DLC candidates (Bayh, Warner, and Vilsack) combine for 15%.

GOP-lite was so last season, inspiration is in style and progress is on the move.


by Bob Brigham on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:25:01 PM EST

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

a pretty strong extrapolation from one Iowa poll.

But--I do think Edwards is the most progressive electable Democrat for 2008.  I love Russ, but that is not gonna happen.  Warner?  Not progressive and hasn't got the experience to sort out the whirlpool of a national race.

Our strongest candidates are Edwards and Clark.  And that's the ticket we need to win in 2008.


by Thaddeus on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:02:25 PM EST

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (3.00 / 1)

This poll proves that Hillary is not the inviable nominee.

IA is a caucus state and activists are very important as well as retail politics.

Hillary is not a very good campaigner and a very poor speaker who doesnot inspire anybody. She certainly is not Bill.

I have not seen one poll where she beats either McCain or Guliani. Her ceiling seems to be 40-41 % in national polls. She also has the largest un-favorables in this pool of any of the candidates(25%)

I donot see her taking any red state.


by BobM on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:10:20 PM EST

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (3.00 / 1)

As an overly-powerful and pandered to New Hampshire primary voter, I just can't see me or anyone around me voting for Hillary regardless of how sophisticated her operation is.  Of course, I still don't see how Kerry carried NH last primary...as I don't know anyone who voted for him.  

Right now, I'm tending toward Edwards; but I really want Obama...


by tneeld on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:32:39 PM EST

It's real early...live in the Now! (none / 0)

Al Gore sent me a letter today...
Actually the DNC sent it but it is from Al and Al is asking me to live in the Now, not the Then.

The Now is 2006, control of Congress and raising awareness of the coming climate crisis is what the Now is all about.
Al wants me to send money to the DNC and I am going to do that.
Al wants me to go see the Movie and I will.

2008 is the Then...and we will be there soon enough, and we will be ready.

It is my contention that Al Gore will be the consensus candidate in 2008...
By consensus I mean by mutual agreement, by the endorsement of his candidacy by all of the potential rivals, including a much relieved Hillary Clinton, and his nomination by acclimation on the first ballot. It is entirely possible that his acceptance speech could also mark the announcement of official candidacy.

The poetic symmetry of Al Gore being elected President to clean up the mess created by the man who was appointed President by the Supreme Court in the wake of the theft of Florida is compelling. The fact of life that bothers them even more is our own demonstrated ability to jump start a Presidential campaign and the expressed desire of a large number of us to do so for Al Gore. Combined with Gore's positions on the Iraq War and the illegal expansion of the Executive's power, the spotlight on the looming environment crisis creates an agenda based moral imperatives, right versus wrong, rather than right versus left. Any contest fought on this higher moral plane, as opposed to such pressing issues as flag burning, the preservation of the assets of the very wealthy and the protection of marriage from the onslaught of gate crashing homosexuals will result in a Republican rout, and most of them know it. Everybody except Bill Frist and Denny Hassert, apparently...

Now I know that all the snarkers and kneekickers out there are probably oiling up the old keyboards to denounce my little bit of poetry...and I know it sounds like a pipe dream, sounds implausible... yada, yada...But considering the course of events over the last several years and the real urgency of our situation, it doesn't sound as kooky as electing Newt Gingrich or Bill Frist, ideas that the mainstream media finds completely plausible. Why even the elevation of a third Bush, Jeb, to the purple is not beyond their consideration, wasting considerable paper and ink over the last few months.

So...consider where we were on Halloween night 2000 and where we are now and then tell me it can't happen...

RG Johnson
RGJ/Dallas112263    

Al Gore will be elected President in 2008...
Not because he is running.
But because he is LEADING!


by Dallas112263 on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:49:48 PM EST

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

You have to run to get elected, sorry!


by musa on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:31:06 PM EST

Re: Edwards Leads in First Iowa Poll (none / 0)

xkc1 xkc2 xkc3 xkc4 xkc5 xkc6 xkc7 xkc8 xkc9 xkc10 xkc11 xkc12 xkc13 xkc14 xkc15 xkc16 xkc17 xkc18 xkc19 xkc20 xkc21 xkc22 xkc23 xkc24 xkc25 xkc26 xkc27 xkc28 xkc29 xkc30 xkc31 xkc32 xkc33 xkc34 xkc35 xkc36 xkc37 xkc38 xkc39 xkc40 xkc41 xkc42 xkc43 xkc44 xkc45 xkc46 xkc47 xkc48 xkc49 xkc50 xkc51 xkc52 xkc53 xkc54 xkc55 xkc56 xkc57 xkc58 xkc59 xkc60 xkc61 xkc62 xkc63 xkc64 xkc65 xkc66 xkc67 xkc68 xkc69 xkc70 xkc71 xkc72 xkc73 xkc74 xkc75 xkc76 xkc77 xkc78 xkc79 xkc80 xkc81 xkc82 xkc83


by ginotte on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 07:00:41 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.