Vote. Of. No. Confidence.

Hypothetical 2008 Vote Matchups

	Aug.	May			Aug.	May
Clinton	39%	42%		Gore	40%	36%
McCain	47%	46%		McCain	47%	48%
Clinton	42%	40%		Gore	42%	37%
Giuliani	46%	49%		Giuliani	46%	50%

The poll addresses questions Chris raised about a year ago about the general election prospects of Gore (wherein Chris contrasted Hillary's chances against Gore's and was skeptical of the latter).

The assumption is that Clinton will win the Democratic primary for Senate.  The result will be that many registered Democrats will be compelled to vote against her in the November election.  Many of us will be unable to vote Democratic in the next presidential election if she is the nominee.  The problem is that she has demonstrated that her career is of greater importance than is the killing of tens of thousands (or more) by US military agression.  God help us with this "opposition" to the Republican regime.

Matt,

I don't think your analysis of the netroots poll with relation to the MoveOn poll is correct.  The netroots poll simply asked whether people approve of Hillary or not.  There are certainly people who would be in the "sure, she's doing an OK job" category, but also, if given the choice, vote for someone who they think would do better.  The MoveOn poll doesn't mean that 44% of MoveOn members disapprove of Hillary, just that 44% would prefer if Tasini.

Regardless, I was expecting Hillary to poll much better than 56%.  That's kind of pathetic.

So who's really to the left of Clinton?  Personally, I dont think she's left or right.  She's just calculating.  

Bayh, Biden, Warner, Richardson are all "centrist" (whatever that means) or to the right of Clinton.  

Clark isn't running a real campaign and, honestly, Feingold may be either too liberal or too jewish to get elected.  

Edwards and Kerry.  Well, we tried that already.  Who's left?  

Where's Gore?  He'd make a great president.

I have a theory that people are fed up with un-responsive government. When given the opportunity they try to signal this however they can.

So the vote for Tasini was a way to tell Clinton that she has to move more in line with what activists are interested in.

Another example, at least in my town, is the number of actions taken against minor issues. The library board has been the subject of heated elections for years. A small road reconstruction project (three blocks long) has been fought over for several years, the local parks board has been investigated for misuse of funds (nothing was uncovered).

The message I get is that people are fed up and this the only way they can express their frustration.

I don't know that much about Tasini but I voted not to endorse Clinton. I saw Spitzer at the Personal Democracy Forum and he was impressive. He talked about how important it was to get more wireless internet access for New York. Then I found statements of Gov Pataki from 3 years earlier that were almost exactly what Spitzer had said. He talked about the mythical $100.00 computer which almost made me laugh. I would bet there wasn't a cell phone in the audience, let alone a computer that was near $100.00.

So what's it to do with Clinton? I am not for criticizing Dems using right wing talking points as I have read on a lot of blogs. But you have to slap the bastards in the face a few times to get their attention. Howard Dean seemed to be about that. But he lost. Lamont won. It had to get their attention. We need to get Clinton's attention too.  

I still think Al Gore could have moved an inch and a half to the left in 2000 and have peeled away 1% of the 97,000 people who voted for Nader.

Garcia,

You're delusional if you think there's any difference between the clintons and the bushes.  Yea, you'll get your gay marriage and support for abortion (those are what I call "pet issues" that only affect a handful of folks out 350 millions), but when it comes to american military agression there isnt one bit of difference between hillary and the republicans.  Hillary's owned by the arms merchants, the big corporations (ruppert murdock endorsements, and all) and AIPAC...and those three can be used Dick Cheney.  

We can, and should do better than Hillary clinton.  Otherwise the democratic party isnt giving people a real option, but rather a "lesser of two evils," which is no option at all.

Bashing Hillary Clinton hurts the Democratic Party.

Down ticket candidates are helped by a strong senate run by Clinton and a strong Gubernatorial run by Elliot Spitzer.

Democratic candidates for NYS Assembly seats and County Offices, especially in tight districts, benefit from a strong up-ticket and the margin can mean a Democratic pick up of a position now held by a Republican.

Hillary loathing may make one "feel good", but she's going to win the primary, and she's going to win the general election, but hurting her, hurts other Democratic candidates.

Let me reiterate:  A vote for Clinton is not a Democratic vote.  It is a vote for her self-serving careerist interests over the interests of the innocent people being bombed by Americans and their allies (few as those allies may be) and over the interests of average Americans.  Hillary Clinton does not represent the interests of a Democratic Party that has moral legitimacy.  Let's not be so worried about supporting candidates of the party only because they have the most money or the most organization.  Clinton is the candidate of the moneyed interests in much the same way as most Republicans are.  A decent Democrat would not support her.  She and her ilk are driving away the Party's base.  A Democrat with a conscience could not vote for her.  It's not just a matter of her consistent support for the Iraq invasion and occupation, although that is sufficient reason to run away from her.  Look at her vote for the bankers when she voted to exclude credit card debt from bankruptcy protections.  A vote for Hillary is a refutation of what makes it worth not being a Republican.

More is as stake than winning the election this fall.  What is at stake, among other things, is whether the Democratic Party is worth supporting.  Other than being the "sole alternative" to the Republicans, does it have value unto itself?  At one time it could make a claim to supporting the interests of the lower and middle classes.  Can we say that Hillary supports such interests?  No, she represents the interests of those who can donate to her campaigns.  We ought to reject someone who consistently has supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq and who has not supported the economic or moral interests of the swelling ranks of the poor (at the expense of the middle class).  Wake up and demand more of the Democratic Party.  If it doesn't deliver better, it's not worthy of our support.  Don't blame Nader for Gore's loss.  Nader got his votes only because the Democrats didn't provide sufficient reason to support them.

It's too bad that Tasini doesn't have the money and the organization that Lamont does. I have also talked to former Tasini staffers and from what I hear the campaign is very unorganized and full of political neophytes.

That said, I'd like to see Tasini make Hillary sweat a little bit about the war. I hope he manages to pull at least 40% in the primary. Maybe that would cause HRC to think about her position more carefully.

Regardless of the result, the MoveOn vote itself was good publicity for Tasini.