New 2008 Poll

Who should be the nominee in 2008?  I have taken out John Edwards (3%), Joe Biden (3%), and Tom Vilsack (1%).  I am adding in Senator Barbara Boxer, Wesley Clark, and Dennis Kucinich.  I am not putting in Howard Dean because it looks like he will be DNC Chair.  If he loses that race, he will be in the next poll.  If your candidate isn't on  the list, choose "Other" and put their name in the comments below, I will put them in the next poll.  Those under 5% are eliminated from the poll.

Tags: (all tags)



Will be a very different election from this time out; its an open seat and the GOP risks a divisive primary between a far-righter like Ashcroft, Brownbeck or Santorum; a Bush-type "compassionate conservative" probably Frist; and a "reformer" likely McCain.

Other than McCain, none of these people inspire much confidence or have much of a track record.

So for us, its a great opportunity if we can put forth a candidate who is both ready to deal with the difficulties of day to day campaigning, is well known already to our base, and is clearly ready to be President in the eyes of the rest of the country.

I think thats John Kerry.

by desmoulins 2005-01-24 03:12PM | 0 recs
Its about governing, not winning
On this list I only see two people with the gravitas to actually be president: Kerry and Clark. You think W is having problems with his mandate? Remember Clinton and his Health Care debacle. America needs someone who will govern from the center.

Also, the MIdlle Class. That's what its all about. Not the poor, not the rich, the middle class. If democrats cannot realize that, they are finished.

by Paul Goodman 2005-01-25 04:18AM | 0 recs
And Feingold
I can see Feingold as president.  He has a way that makes left-leaning issues sound centrist.  Clark is my second choice.

Kerry-no.  At this point, he is baggage city.

by Geotpf 2005-01-25 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Its about governing, not winning
If you grow the middle class by helping the poor move into the middle class isn't that good for the Democratic Party?
by LionelEHutz 2005-01-25 09:15AM | 0 recs
Goodman, any Dem on the list would govern well
Basically every single Dem Senator, and most Dem Governors and Congressmen have more gravitas than the entire list of GOP candidates (with the possible exception of McCain, who has no chance of getting the GOP nomination). Please stop attacking good Democrats in your posts. Advocate the positives about your candidate.  
by afs 2005-01-25 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Goodman, any Dem on the list would govern well
Oh my lord! Please don't vote.
by CoF301 2005-01-25 02:18PM | 0 recs
just win, baby
You can't govern if you can't win.  Kerry can't win, so all the gravitas in the world won't help him govern.  Mainstream Democratic candidates with the political skills to get elected would at least have a shot at doing well in office.  Let's remember step 1, though.
by CA Pol Junkie 2005-01-25 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Its about governing, not winning
To be completely accurate...It is about both.  We need someone who will be good at governing the country and can win the election.  

Good 2002, the Dems ran Lisa Madigan against John Schmidt for Attorney General in the primaries.  Madigan has some experience but nothing major. Schmidt had over 20 years of experience and was a clean cut guy who knew how to run a large office like that.

Madigan won, not based on the fact she was a better leader, but because she had the better organization and was a better campaigner than Schmidt.  

Governing is important but we have to remember, the ultimate goal is to win.  

The real problem we as party have is figuring out what will actually win.  Most (myself included) thought Dean wouldn't be able to win, so Kerry was chosen.  In hind sight, I think many of us see that Kerry was not really a winnable candidate this term.

We need a fighter, a strong leader and a great speaker.  Who is that?  Well at this point I am still making up my mind.  Feindgold intrigues me, Clark was my first choice in 2004, Warner is potentially strong and Edwards may be able to do some damage.  It will be a fun race.

by yitbos96bb 2005-01-27 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: 08
I think Al gore is going to be by far the strongest candidate in the field. n/t
by descrates 2005-01-25 06:21AM | 0 recs
That's good
I bumped this poll up to the main page.
by Jerome Armstrong 2005-01-24 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: That's good
Thanks a lot.
by Max Friedman 2005-01-24 03:51PM | 0 recs
Incomplete List
The one name that is conspicuous by it's absence is:

John Edwards --

I think he is the natural front runner right now, and he would have been the nominee if there had been two weeks between Iowa and New Hampshire, and another two weeks before subsequent primaries.

A long primary season is the best reform we can have, btw -- stretching it out gives our team more free media, and insures that the eventual nominee will have the right stuff for the the long haul. The compressed schedule was the glitch that allowed John Kerry to run the table after winning in Iowa.

My personal favorite, both in 2002 and now?

Dick Durbin --

He has guts, charisma, and intelligence -- the three qualities that are essential for a successful Democratic Presidential Candidate.

by ck 2005-01-26 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Incomplete List

Well, not quite run the table.

TO give credit, Edwards won in SC and Clark won in OK

by tschmidty 2005-01-27 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Incomplete List
I love Durbin, I just don't see him running.
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-27 07:12AM | 0 recs
I like the leaders
Feingold, Warner, and Gore.  

Thank you for removing Edwards.  He was a pointless Veep (good speaker, but a rather hollow record).

Kerry and Clark?  No way in hell.

The next prez has to be two things:

  1.  Virulently opposed to the industrial colonization of Iraq.  Feingold comes up big here.

  2.  Fiscally responsible.  Warner wins big points here.
by jcjcjc 2005-01-24 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders
Absolutely.  I think while he's not the frontrunner he's clearly gort the strongest claim to the nomination.
by descrates 2005-01-25 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders
Gore that is.


by descrates 2005-01-25 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders
Feingold is also one of the most fiscally responsible senators.
by sam89 2005-01-25 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders
Kerry and Clark?  No way in hell.

I can understand Kerry, but why not Clark?

by Reverend AlX 2005-01-25 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders
Clark supported the administration in the early days of the war.
by jcjcjc 2005-01-25 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders
Richard Perle in front of the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002:

"So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

You must be thinking of a different Clark. He didn't support the administration in the early days of the war nor has he ever supported their Iraq policy.

by digit 2005-01-25 10:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders
I've seen a few quotes from around March 2003 that seemed to skew pro-war.

Also, don't forget that Clark said he voted for W in 2000!

by jcjcjc 2005-01-26 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders

Uh, wrong. Clark is on record as having voted for Gore in 2000, as well as Clinton in '92 and '96.

And while you may have read pro-war into his statements, his ACTUAL statements were against the war in Iraq, both prior to and during the war.

by tschmidty 2005-01-27 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders
Well, you guys need to work harder squelch rumors.  Because what I've heard is that Clark is a closet Bushie who went Dem for political reasons only.
by jcjcjc 2005-01-27 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders

I'm sorry but people who "supposedly" pay attention would know this stuff.  HE VOTED FOR BUSH??? what planet are you on?  We need to work harder?  Maybe you need to get your head out of your ass if you believe all the shit you just said.  You obviously don't like Clark, why don't you come out and say it rather than hide behind ludicrous statements you know to be false.


by JAmbro 2005-01-27 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders
I have seen it said on this website several times in various replies to posts.

There is a strong anti-Clark movement out there.

As for QUOTE: [but people who "supposedly" pay attention would know this stuff].

Know what?  Fuck you.  Not everyone has all the time in the world to piss away on this stuff.

Some of us TRY to stay involved, but then we have to listen to some self-righteous cocksucker like YOU.

Please quit replying.

by jcjcjc 2005-01-27 05:20PM | 0 recs
Pro-Bush quote
"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. "
by jcjcjc 2005-01-27 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Pro-Bush quote
You give no date or context for that quote deliberately.

Believe the ludicrous lies about Clark if that makes you feel better.

by digit 2005-01-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Pro-Bush quote
And what about Clark's pro-Reagan quotes?

There isn't that much difference between Reagan and Bush.  Reagan had the good fortune to already be running a deficit.  Geopolitically, had Reagan had a monopolar world, he would have exercised force with the same abandon Bush does.

What about Clark's work for a political firm tied to the GOP?

Don't any of these raise red flags?  Especially since Clark hasn't laid down a real reason for abandoning the GOP?

Let him run for governor of AR or something.  Let him build some street cred as a Democrat first.

by jcjcjc 2005-01-28 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Pro-Bush quote
Do you actually have any details to back up any of your blanket statements? No.  Have you ever heard Clark speak or did you even read his position papers when he ran? No.  

As evidence of your total lack of knowedge of Clark (other than what Rush and Drudge say about him) you link him to the GOP when he's never been a Republican.

Remember, he didn't have to reveal he voted for Republicans over 20 years ago, but he did. If he really was some sort of Bush loving opportunist (which you imply with your smear ladened posts) he'd be lying right and left-- that's what they do.

by digit 2005-01-28 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Pro-Bush quote
"he'd be lying right and left"

Hmmm . . .  a lying politician?  Jeepers.  What's next?

I think Clark made a late move sensing a moment of weakness (hardly a masterful observation, given that was everyone's view right up to Nov. 2) in Bush's camp.  It fell apart.  Things happen.

Clark is dead in the water.  

BTW -- who cares about a friggin position paper?!  Papers?!  What, is he writing a grant?

How about a track record of policy decisions?

For example, Dean folks can point to a handful of acts he had as Governor and say "Gee, so that's what he does in the face of opposition."

No one can say this about Clark.  His time as NATO Commander hardly helps us figure out where he would really stand.

And, as Bush has proven so clearly, where you say you stand and where you stand are separate things.  

by jcjcjc 2005-01-28 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Pro-Bush quote
"BTW -- who cares about a friggin position paper?!  Papers?! "

Obviously you don't since several people and myself have pointed out your lack of knowledge of the known facts.

"for example, Dean folks can point to a handful of acts"

Is this the primary fight all over? I hold no ill will to Dean or his supporters.

Doesn't the fact that Clark campaigned relentlessly for Kerry and other Democrats across the country once he suspended his own campaign give him any legitimacy in your eyes?

Whatever crackpot theory you have of him is wrong and shows not only your lack of knowledge, but your lazy adherence to lies even when presented with the truth.  

by digit 2005-01-29 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Pro-Bush quote
One thing, real quick: you're determined to define facts about Clark and to squelch any dissent.

I have seen nothing to ease these concerns about Clark.  You know what might?  AN ACTUAL RECORD!

Is that too much to ask?!  After all, we're only talking about handing the man 1/3 of the world's economy, most of the world's nuclear weapons, two wars in progress, and the largest debt of any nation in history.

by jcjcjc 2005-01-29 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Pro-Bush quote... I AM A REPUBLICAN
Is there something wrong with that?  It just proves that Clark has broad appeal.
by Wesgal 2005-02-06 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders.. If Clark said he voted
for Gore then he voted for Gore.  Are you calling him a liar?
by Wesgal 2005-02-06 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a handfull of generals who did support the war...

No, generals aren't anti war, but they sure as hell are anti-stupid war...

by Reverend AlX 2005-01-26 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I like the leaders

Well,  if by pointless you mean he didn't take a $45 million dollar warchest into Iowa and blow the whole thing, then I guess you're right.

by DrFrankLives 2005-01-27 08:18AM | 0 recs
I agree that Kerry is a has been, but Clark still has a good shot I believe.

Boxer might make a run to replace Dean on the left for the primary but won't even make it to the California primary. Edwards needs to have a good hobby to keep him in the spotlight or else he will be like Lieberman last time, only a bit better because he has a personality and itsn't too conservative and strategically idiotic (see 2002 and DHS).

Vilsack and Biden are never-was as is Hillary in my opinon. Lots of people want her to run, except for her. Unlike Clark, she has been on the trail before with Bill and knows what it will be like and knows how much worse it would be for her. I bet she stays in the Senate and gets more powerful.

I like Warner, I just wonder how well he will be able to parlay one term in VA to the country and if he could keep VA and other southern/border states competitive against a GOPer.

Kucinich is a crazy elf.

by DaveB 2005-01-24 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark
Why doesn't he run for Governor or something instead?  He needs to keep his profile up because come 2008 there's a good chance that nobody, except those who follow politics, will remember him.  
by LionelEHutz 2005-01-25 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark
Arkansas has a governors race in 06. If he beats the Republican incumbent that would be great stuff.
by sam89 2005-01-25 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark
Do you think we can run someone in 08 who has only 2 years of Gov. experience behind them?

If so, than why not Spitzer?

by Reverend AlX 2005-01-25 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark
I'm not pro-Clark for 08. But I do think that he would be setting himself up well for a future run in 2012 or 2016. I will be working on spitzers campaign in 06 and I hope he will be our nominee for president in 2016 after a succesful two term Feingold administration.
by sam89 2005-01-26 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark
That sounds like a very nice plan, but how old will Clark be by 2016?
by Max Friedman 2005-01-26 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark
Barack Obama in 2016!!!
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-27 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark
I don't really want Clark for president all that much. I never once considered backing him for president. I was just giving a suggestion to these Clarkies on how they could get their man to the top. Having him do nothing for the next four years won't accomplish their goals. Besides, I wouldn't mind having a democratic governor of Arkansas.
by sam89 2005-01-27 08:56AM | 0 recs
I think Democrats need Boxer in to the end.
I don't know if Boxer can win the nomination, but I know Boxer need to be in the nomination process all the way to the convention. The only way a Dem is going to be serious about voting rights is if Boxer's presence in the race forces all the candidates in the race to make committments regarding changes in the voting process. If given the choice, DLC Dems will abandon voting rights at the drop of a hat. That cannot be allowed to happen. Boxer presence forces the party to safeguard the process, and find a way to get an academic-research-caliber exit poll done of the 08 election that is not capable of having it's raw data hidden from the public like the news media exit poll was. The exit polling process needs to be just as transparant as the election process ideally should be. We need the world to be able to watch the next Presidential Election.
by afs 2005-01-25 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I think Democrats need Boxer in to the end.
You may be right, although i hope DLC Dems are at least a little smarter than that.  Voting rights should equal better performance by Democratic Candidates both local and national.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-27 07:18AM | 0 recs
Oh I love this!
With mine the 201st vote the pairings are hilarious! (at least the lowest two pair)

Bringing up the rear with 7 votes each:

Hilary Clinton & Dennis Kucinich

Next ahead of them with 13 each:

Evan Bayh & John Kerry (and other but we won't count them)

My "almost vote" Barbara Boxer stands alone with a surprisingly weak, considering her recent popularity, 18 votes.

And now the serious contenders:

Our Clarkies weight in with:
Wesley Clark - 28

The strong Virginia Contingent with:
Mark Warner - 30

My Boy, the 43rd President of the United States:
Al Gore - 31

And the completely unrealistic but heartfelt favorite:
Russ Feingold - 41

by Andrew C White 2005-01-24 08:09PM | 0 recs
Somehow I think the basic principles of statistics states that this poll is hardly indicative of the population as a whole: self-selecting survey on a left-wing blog? Yeah.

So no, it's no surprise that Hillary would tie Dennis.

But we all know Hillary is a given as a frontrunner for the nomination, along with Edwards. It's simply a political fact.

I'd be more concerned about the prospects of going up against 3 likely nominees for the GOP: McCain, Jeb, and Guiliani. My worst nightmare is a McCain/Guiliani ticket.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-01-25 02:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh
Of course it is just silliness and not even remotely close to being scientific but I just love the thought of Hil and Dennis as a lovely couple. Perhaps they could be on the ticket together?
by Andrew C White 2005-01-25 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh
No way.  I don't think hillary or edwards are the clear frontrunners at all.  Hillary is already very polarized and Edwards veep performance was generally considered lackluster.  Personally, I think by '07 gore will have a far better position for the frontrunner mantle.
by descrates 2005-01-25 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh
I think that if the war is still being fought then our best chances come from ex-Generals, either Clark or Anthony Zinni. We're going to need someone who not only can talk the National Security talk, but who exudes confidence and the strength that the average American will be looking for in a wartime pres.
by Reverend AlX 2005-01-25 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh
McCain is a concern, Guilliani may be although i have a feeling if one were to dig harder they would find a lot of skeletons.  Jeb is a joke and I personally would welcome him as the GOP nom almost as much as the hardcore right wingers.  

If I were you I would be more afraid of Frist.  He is a proven leader (in the eyes of the GOP faithful), a great smoozer and could be a smarter more devious version of W.  If he teams up with Rove, that would be my nightmare.  I could live with a McCainGuilliani presidency...I won't vote for it, but I could deal with it.  A Frist presidency makes me want to leave the country.

As far as Hillary, I think the Media annoints her as front runner absolutely.  However, her campaign will have to face this reality...There will be a huge backlash against her as soona s she officially declares. The Clintons can go nuclear (Nucular for W), but they have to expect there will be those in the party who will take the fight right back to them.  I have a feeling the backlash against her will be much worse than what Dean faced in the the last month of the Iowa primaries.  How Hillary handles these attacks and the backlash will determine if she can win.  She is going to be hit with questions on some of the scandals she has faced while as first lady.  She is going to have to convince people to vote for her when her opponents will probably say that she will do more to organize the GOP base than the Gay Marriage initiatives.  Unless she locks up party support VERY EARLY as W did in 2000, she will have an uphill battle.  She can win it, but it will be hard.  I like Hillary, and I think she would do a decent job. If she wins the nomination, I will definately support her.  But I also think at this point there are a few stronger candidates that have just as strong governing skills and are more likable.

As far as Edwards, I think he might end up getting it (or Clark) based on him getting labeled "the anti Hillary".  He will definately be a media labeled front runner and maybe a party labeled front runner, although I have some doubts unless he can raise his public awareness to stay in the limelight the next few years.  Warner is another possibility to take the Anti-Hillary position.

by yitbos96bb 2005-01-27 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh I love this!
What's wrong with Feingold?  He is from the Heartland, he won many counties this time that Kerry didn't win, he voted against the PATRIOT Act (the only Senator to do so), and could replace Dean for the nomination (assuming that Dean is elected DNC Chair).
by Max Friedman 2005-01-25 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh I love this!
There is nothing wrong with Feingold. I am a HUGE fan and would love to see him as a serious contender. I just have a hard time seeing him having much more of a chance of getting the nomination then Kucinich or Dean did this time around. He is seen as being far too liberal. That said, with Dean as DNC Chair perhaps a true progressive has a chance and that is why I strongly support Dean for chair. Until some serious change occurs in the direction of the Democratic Leadership however I have a hard time seeing the Russ Feingold's of the world standing a chance.
by Andrew C White 2005-01-25 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh I love this!
That's what they said about Russ when he launced his longshot bid for the US Senate against two better financed and better known candidates in the 1992 Democratic primary.  He wasn't supposed to win that race, yet he wound up winning with an amazing 70% of the vote.  He knocked off a two-term incumbent Republican, Bob Kasten, in the general election in 1992.  Many of the so-called experts predicted that Russ would lose his Senate seat in 1998. Russ courageously decide to abide the provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill, ev Despite being vastly outspent by his opponents and targeted by the Republican leadership, he prevailed.

Russ has shown that he can appeal to rural voters, independents, and yes, even some fiscally responsible Republicans.  This time around, he ran five points ahead of John Kerry won many counties that John Kery lost.  It was not uncommon to see Bush and Feingold signs in the same yard.

Russ Feingold is much better known nationally now than Howard Dean was at this stage of the game in 2001.  Russ is already considered a serious contended by the media.  He is almost always included in the lists of the top ten possible Democratic presidential contenders for 2008.  Let's remember that Howard Dean was not taken too serously initally.  I am not even going to address the issue of comparing Russ to Dennis Kucinih.  There is no comparison.  

Russ has consistenly won in a swing state.  He has a way of making liberal/progressive ideals sound like common sense.  He has a history of being able to win campaigns when is outspent. Please visit

by whodat527 2005-01-25 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh I love this!
When Russ won his initial Senate primary, Jim Moody and Matt Flynn spent the entire primary knocking each other off and ignoring Russ, who was busy campaigning in his Middleton home with a cardboard cutout of Elvis.

Russ then went on to beat a US Senator who had, in fact, been declared the loser six years before by two of the three networks in his race against the former head of the National Football League Players Association (later to be Assistant Wisconsin Attorney General, Ed Garvey.

When Bobby Kasten pulled out his win he was later forced to apologize to Ed and Gene Upshaw for the flat out lies he told about them in ads the last two weeks of that campaign, ads that more than implied they'd been stealing cash from the union.

Reaching Washington, Russ was the key figure in the confirmation of John Ashcroft, so perhaps it's appropriate he should have voted against the Patriot Act, since we probably wouldn't have faced a piece of legislation that extreme if Russ had shown a backbone in the first place.

Now he's managed to vote for COndi Rice's confirmation.

Congratulations, Russ!  They still think you're a marvel.

Put me down for "Other", aka Howard Dean.

by sixteenwords 2005-01-26 10:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh I love this!
You can't blame him for the vote for Aschroft. At the time no one knew how bad this president was going to be and Bush had portrayed himself as very open to bipartisanship. Feingold backed Ashcroft because he was hoping to have a good relationship with the white house. Like I said before no one knew how bad this president would be.
by sam89 2005-01-27 09:02AM | 0 recs
Clark Still???
I'm sorry, I know this poll means nothing, but I still don't understand the love for Clark.  

He's still never held an elected position, never really said anything groundbreaking during his campaign except, "Kerry has an intern problem" (Thank U Drudge for that one), is for a flag burning amendment, and he never even had any real fleshed out policy proposals.  

If you're wondering, I voted for the only option that's actually won a presidential race.

by AnotherUnemployedDNCStaffer 2005-01-24 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark Still???
Well that disqualifies Bush since he only just won his first presidential race.
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-01-25 02:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark Still??? This may explain.
See post #22 at this link, and more further down the page.
by concerned democrat 2005-01-25 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark Still??? This may explain.
HAHA, Thanks for showing the inherent problem with online polls.
by AnotherUnemployedDNCStaffer 2005-01-25 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark Still??? This may explain.
You are most welcome.  It is a network, and it skews many polls.  Most welcome.  My pleasure.
by concerned democrat 2005-01-25 01:48PM | 0 recs
That explains it
Clark has received 101 votes in the past four hours or so.

Here are the results as of about noon today:

Who Should be the Nominee in 2008?

Hillary Clinton 21 votes - 4 %
John Kerry 30 votes - 6 %
Al Gore 69 votes - 14 %
Evan Bayh 22 votes - 4 %
Russ Feingold 87 votes - 18 %
Mark Warner 56 votes - 11 %
Barbara Boxer 40 votes - 8 %
Wesley Clark 73 votes - 15 %
Dennis Kucinich 15 votes - 3 %
OTHER 64 votes - 13 %

477 Total Votes

Here are the results right now:

Who Should be the Nominee in 2008?  

Hillary Clinton    29 votes - 4 %  
John Kerry    37 votes - 5 %  
Al Gore    92 votes - 12 %  
Evan Bayh    28 votes - 3 %  
Russ Feingold    110 votes - 15 %  
Mark Warner    63 votes - 8 %  
Barbara Boxer    72 votes - 10 %  
Wesley Clark    174 votes - 24 %  
Dennis Kucinich    17 votes - 2 %  
OTHER    89 votes - 12 %  

711 Total Votes

by Geotpf 2005-01-25 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: That explains it/and so it spreads.....

Nothing inherently wrong, just rather annoying and skewing.

by concerned democrat 2005-01-25 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: That explains it
OK I just joined this site to figure out if I should be apologizing for having participated in this poll.  I saw this poll linked to from Democratic Underground.  The link was hiding in plain sight in the Wesley Clark supporters group that is hosted there.  

Here's the thing.  In this age of internet linking I am trying to figure out what is appropriate use of links and what is not.  Seriously.  For example I have decided not to participate in polls that are obviously meant to sample opinions of people living in a certain region that I do not live in.  Also I do not participate in polls hosted at a professional site where the implicit assumption is that those who are there share in the the same profession, or Union or whatever.  And I do not lie in polls, meaning I would not pretend to be a Republican against Bush because I am not a Republican although I am against Bush.

I followed the link here and it looked like a generalized political site with left of center content so I did not assume there was anything wrong about participating by voting.  I also made note that it looked like an interesting site and that I would follow the link back within the next two days to explore it further and see what happened from there.

Then I saw a post at Democratic Underground's Democracy For America group (actually it was posted in reply to a post I made there) which said in part:  

"But you might want to tell your friends that they have been discovered Clarking the MyDD poll today. And someone is establishing the trackback.

This is just ridiculous. That is Jerome Armstrong's site, and lots of old Deaniacs lurk there.

Have a chat with your friends."

As a result I made time to come back here tonight to get feedback from members here.  If an apology is in order for following that link over here from Democratic Underground to register my vote for Wesley Clark, then I give it now.  The truth of the matter though is I would not have known about this site were it not for that link, and perhaps, if the content and climate is right, I would be interested in being more involved here.  

I honestly am not trying to be cute with this post.  I am used to following poll links directly from the main pages of Democratic Underground, though admittedly most often that is to preference polls hosted by Main Stream Media.  

I can see how being linked to from a  candidate "advocacy" site can cause a surge of some degree in support in your poll for that candidate.  So should I have not come here and voted?  Should I go back to Democratic Underground and ask that people not come to this site to particiapte in this Poll, although we are Democrats who intend to be involved in the 2008 Election and active until then?  

by Tom Rinaldo 2005-01-25 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: That explains it
I think you're worried a little too much, I'm pretty sure everyone here knows how easy it is to skew an online poll, heck, I think I voted in 20 different online polls after each of the debates.  I also don't think anyone here would discourage interested democrats from participating in a public online poll on this site, it's just a little annoying for site "regulars" who want to know what the other "regulars" think.
by AnotherUnemployedDNCStaffer 2005-01-25 09:02PM | 0 recs
Freeping the poll isn't a problem... does make the effectiveness of the poll as a gauge of who the netroots actually support problematic, although it appears only Clarkites have been passing around the link, therefore the rest of the canidate's support seems genuine.

Like I said, my choices are Feingold or Clark (with Clark having the edge if we are still cowering in fear of the terristssss in 2008), so I am not unhappy with the results here.

by Geotpf 2005-01-26 12:35AM | 0 recs
Re: That explains it
And I was a huuuuge Clark supporter (still am). I think the Dems need to draft as many Generals to run for office as they can (My other favorite is Anthony Zinni for Senate)
by Reverend AlX 2005-01-26 04:30AM | 0 recs
Re: That explains it. It's a cult
This is hilarious.  The Clark cultists are getting busted all over the place. You guys infiltrated DU, swung that place to the right with the help of all your American Patriots (parrots would be a better term) and are using DU as a stepping stone to find other places to freep and skew to the right. Don't you have better things to do like go protest the School of the Americas? Oh that's right you can't, Clarked worked there and likes them.  How about an ANSWER march against this war? Oh rats, can't do that either because ANSWER says Clark is a war criminal. Maybe you could form your own group and protest the occupation? Shoot, you can't do that either because he wrote the plans for Iraqi occupation.  How about globalization? Nope, Clark went to Davos and spoke in favor of that. Maybe you could form your own anti-this-war-the-way-Bush-is-doing-it-because-we-have-a-shiny-General?  Whoops, you can't do that either because Clark went to Europe with Powell before the war to tell the Europeans to get on board now that the President had made a decision and then went on CNN to whore himself cheering the war on. Maybe you could fight Bush and his friends Perle and Wolfie? Damn! Can't do that either because they're all friends of Clark that he'd love to work with again!  Well damn, what do you guys have in common with progressives besides our polls?

I'm relieved the posters at Democraticunderground are on to you guys. I've been lurking there for 3 years and read a lot of complaints from them about your poll freeping and annoying behavior. American Patriots for Clark and your marching bands are a danger to progressives everywhere. 7014&mesg_id=1518015&page=

One poster I like there called it "an annoying military operation complete with Captains, First Sergeants and Squad Leaders marshalling the troops."  

There are some choice quotes in that thread

Before anybody accuses me of being intentionally posting flamebait or agitating etc... I think people here at DU have a right to know how the Clark folks are trying to manipulate them and dishonestly skew polls and discussions with ringers.

I did a search on the clark04 official blog for "" and found several instances of calls being made to Clark blogers to come to DU to promote Clark, bas Dean, and vote for Clark in DU polls... some even with direct links.

They are openly calling for Clark folks to flood DU, to freep polls and convert people here. SO keep that in mind when you see the "testimonials" and the so called independent evaluations of Clark from the glut of newbies who suddenly show up.

This is an organized and orchestrated effort to create the appearance of DU being massively for Clark to try and win over converts with the good old bandwagon method. Just like Bush has to truck in his own supporters to photo ops... Clark Corps have to bring their own people in from the Clark Blog to act as converts and undecided voters and to try and drown out non-Clark voices on DU. 8828#798828

How many polls did you guys freep over there? When you first invaded the place the admin told you "I want to say welcome to all of you -- I'm impressed by your enthusiasm. I hope you'll stick around. But in the future I'd prefer if you avoided freeping our polls." 9826#851776

That poster really made his point when he posted the CNN link to a creeper freeped poll where Clark had 91% of 1802646 votes.  That must have been a very busy day for Clark's brownshirts.

And you're still freeping them.  I'm glad people are catching on to these cultish actions.

Tom Rinaldo, I just searched on your name and you're all over the internet doing this.  Your brown shirts freep polls, then you put out defensive action alerts when people catch on and you go from blog to blog acting surprised as if this is the first time you were caught and try to smooth the waters to make people think this is all on the up and up.  Well it's not. I'm here to say it and I'm glad people are catching on all over the net and telling your brownshirts to buzz off.  Your charade has worn thin.

by Heel2Toe 2005-01-29 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark Still??? This may explain.
Yea, that just craps the poll.  They did that to the last one as well. lets call them the creepers.
by Jerome Armstrong 2005-01-25 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark Still??? This may explain.
jerome, do you actually think that any poll you put on here wouldn't have the same effect.  come on now.  "they" did that to the last one.  "they".  Are you kidding me? THEY? I was a reader of mydd, and a Clark blogger, but you say shit like that, it completely turns me off this site.  I tell people to vote on a poll at your site, and you shun myself and them.  I'll be sure not tell anymore like minded democrats to come over here.  I apologize.  
by JAmbro 2005-01-27 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark Still???
"Kerry has an intern problem"

You do know Clark never said this?

by WesDem 2005-01-26 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark Still???
I remember coming home and going to the Drudge Report just to see what was going on and saw the giant headline of the "intern problem".  This was after Super Tuesday so all the big contenders (everyone besides Sharpton and Kucinich) had dropped out, leaving Kerry as the nominee.  TV didn't touch this story at all and it was later proven to be completely made up.
by Max Friedman 2005-01-26 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark Still???
You're right, what he did say was, "Kerry will implode over an intern issue" as confirmed in the Boston Globe here  While the statement was "off the record" there's no denying he said it to a room full of reporters.  And that's still the only memorable thing he said in the entire campaign.
by AnotherUnemployedDNCStaffer 2005-01-26 12:54PM | 0 recs
I think if Kerry emerges as a democratic lightning rod and steady leader against the republican agenda for the next 4 yrs, he may have a decent shot, only if he keeps out in the open and keeps a "party leader" persona. He will be seen as ready for office when the GOP stooges are hurling their feces in the primaries. He will be 72 at the end of a 2nd term though, and his looks aren't getting any younger. It would be good to have a campaign without any serious strategy missteps for once, perhaps Kerry has learned from mistakes. Im also all for Gore, but this may all be because of my attachment to Kerry and Gore during their respective years. If these two don't shape up though, i'm all for a Clark or Warner race.
by NyNhDem 2005-01-25 08:56AM | 0 recs
Kerry will never get another progressive vote
Kerry will never be able to get past the concession.
by afs 2005-01-25 10:13AM | 0 recs
Well, he did lose
Face it, he did.  Or if he didn't, it was more or less unprovable that he didn't.
by Geotpf 2005-01-25 02:01PM | 0 recs
No conclusive evidence that either candidate won
I don't run around saying anyone was robbed. There is no conclusive evidence that anyone was robbed. However, there is also not conclusive evidence that any candidate won, either.

Exit polls were screwed. No paper trail to audit vote totals. No business could get it's books certified by auditor if they were this much of a mess.

by afs 2005-01-26 07:12AM | 0 recs
John Edwards
Where is John Edwards?
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-25 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards
Edwards was eliminated because he got only 3% in last week's poll.  Read my policy at the top of the diary.
by Max Friedman 2005-01-25 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards
So you took out the clear real world frontrunner and replaced him with people who got NO votes last time.  

Gee, that makes sense.

by DrFrankLives 2005-01-27 08:20AM | 0 recs
Bayh / Obama
... on the surface, I like this combination... A fiscally responsible / family friendly centrist, complemented by a VP who frames Dem positions without the conventional class warfare... OTOH, it might be too soon for Obama...any thoughts?
by HKingsley 2005-01-25 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Bayh / Obama
On the principle that were just having fun with these guys/gals at this stage of the game.

None of the above, although Feingold and Kucinich probably most reflect my views.

Obama is a promising unknown.  He's NOT too young, however, although he LOOKS a bit younger than he is.  But what are his beliefs, his policies, his agenda?  How does he stand on rights issues, denial of habeus corpus, nuclear disarmament?

You get the idea.  Bayh moves me not at all.  My leader.

A leader needs charisma of some sort.  Also needs to lead!  and to lead, you need to know where you want to go!  That was Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Carter's problem.  You've got to stand FOR something.  Bush, the slimy bastard, does stand FOR something in a lot of people's minds.  And its not ALL smoke and shadows.  He has a radical reactionary set of political beliefs that he adhere's to.  And he's intelligent.

Bush is also ignorant, of course, slippery, lying son of the aristocracy with a very flexible set of MORAL principals, but all in the service of the CAUSE in his mind.  

That's my reading, anyway.  To fight that--or his successor--Frist, Jeb, who knows?--were going to also need someone who can talk, who has something to say, a bit of charisma or at least charm, and enough vision to convince people that he wants to lead them there.  

There are plenty of issues where we can lead the way.  And the party needs to be staking out those positions in congress and in the field NOW so that the nominee has a natural platform to run on in 4 years.  

And that's the problem.  The current crop of officials are afraid of their own shadows, communicate no ideas; seem to have none.  Are unwilling to confront the possibility of having fought the good fight and lost, therefore they never fight the good fight at all (Kerry).

That really is a sad list.

by Reptile 2005-01-25 11:41AM | 0 recs
Where's Edwards?
Personally I'd prefer Al Gore, but I suspect that's unrealistic, given his reported difficulty persuading the DLC/DNC moneybags circa 2002, and his  present low profile. (Where's your blog Al?)

Nevertheless, Edwards has to be the front-runner at present, if not in the lefty blogosphere, than with likely dem voters at large. Surely he had the highest positives and lowest negatives of the 4 on the ballot this past November. I also think that a lot of democratic grass roots are miffed at Kerry for folding on the 3rd as he did. I know I'M miffed at his unwillingness to robustly counterattack the swift boat buggerers. I guess he thought the media was going to do their job and set things right. Ha.  

by Hugo 2005-01-25 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Where's Edwards?
I have said that I took Edwards off because he got only 3% in the last poll.  I am doing this to see who the blogosphere likes.  Today it looks like Clark is winning.  
by Max Friedman 2005-01-25 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Where's Edwards?
It's too early to be eliminating anybody. The idea of eliminating candidates in 2005 is just downright silly. Put everyone and their brother up there in the poll and just let people see who wins.
by afs 2005-01-25 12:26PM | 0 recs
Maybe this is why.

Starts with post #22.  

Many other sites link from there as well, and they are sent here.  

It is perfectly fine, but it does skew polls.  
Not a problem for me, as Dean is not on the list anyway.  

I am too busy thinking of how we take back our party at local levels than worrying about 2008.  

by concerned democrat 2005-01-25 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe this is why.
Of course we have to work on the local level, but the Presidency is the highest focus.  I think that if Dean is DNC Chair, he can build the grassroots and really help the party win.
by Max Friedman 2005-01-25 01:25PM | 0 recs
Why does Clark keep on winning these polls?
Hasn't anyone ever read the New Yorker piece on him from 2003? ("General Clark's battles," November 17, 2003, The New Yorker Magazine)

That sort of did it for me, right there.

by MadProfessah 2005-01-25 01:39PM | 0 recs
Clark has a great resume, but only fair on stump
Clark has to improve his performance on the stump to be considered a leading candidate. His pitch was average, and his performance in Q & A is mediocre.

Sorry something like basic charisma plays so much of a role, but it does, and it foolish to act like it doesn't.

by afs 2005-01-26 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark has a great resume, but only fair on stu
I defenitely agree, and I was a huge supporter. We really have to get him inot a situation where he can get some practice giving speaches and debating.

Why not run him for a smaller office (Gov or Sen) first?

by Reverend AlX 2005-01-26 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Why does Clark keep on winning these polls?
I don't guess you read the subsequent Salon article debunking most everything that so-called New Yorker reporter had to say about Clark, then, eh?

I'm tired of the bashing of Clark by a group of people who have given us such memorable candidates as Dukakis and Kerry.

If you guys want to take back Congress and the White House, you're going to have to make some inroads into the South.

Clark is a liberal who appears like a moderate and he could lock up at leat two, possibly three, Southern states (election fraud aside).

And, he doesn't HAVE to run for anything else. Eisenhower didn't and Clark also has the experience of running a small government as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO - he was in charge of roads, schools and people.

I think many of you don't realize what he did do. I suggest before you pop your mouth off and misrepresent Clark's positions, you should actually read them. Also, there's no such thing as skewing a poll. If Clark's people are THIS organized, perhaps that should be looked upon as a GOOD THING. The Dems need organization.

by omramzey 2005-01-26 03:15PM | 0 recs
There are many kinds of organization.
The kind of organization that this shows is not worthwhile.  It presents a false picture of real support.  It annoys others as well.  

I am a Southerner who does not feel we need to falsely appeal to us in the name of fear.  I am afraid that many of us feel that is why a general entered the race, to cater to the fear factor.  I think we don't need to do that.

As for your being tired of attacks on Clark....well, I don't think we should bash anyone.  I think telling the truth is good enough.

As to what I am tired of, I am rather tired of a group that skews the outcome of so many polls.  It is your right to do that, it is my right not to like it.

by concerned democrat 2005-01-27 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Why does Clark keep on winning these polls?
Clark became a Democrat just to run for President.  He doesn't seem to have any firm beliefs on domestic policy.  He was a disaster a year ago.  
by Max Friedman 2005-01-27 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Why does Clark keep on winning these polls?
point me to the Salon article debunking the New Yorker piece, please...
by MadProfessah 2005-02-02 02:54PM | 0 recs
My current ticket?
Easterner and southerner.
Two articulate, bright, principled men.
Backing each other up, totally.
Bringing in millions to become involved in the politics of the most powerful nation.
Appealing successfully to all walks of life.
Slashing down the straw men the Republicans put up each election.
by CuriosityKilledTheCat 2005-01-25 01:55PM | 0 recs
A Sad Group
The idea that not having Bush to peddle in front of the American public will hurt the GOP's chances is ridiculous. If it is not a candidate that they can pin the problems of Iraq on then what will the Democrats platform be? Health care? Gay marriage? The patriot act? The economy? Terrorism? Or will they continue to just bash the opposition? There is no more slick Willy who can win the hearts of Americans with charm while just sticking to the issues. When the dems started in on the Ralph Nader is being funded by the GOP garbage it was enough for us independents to realize the depths to which this current group would sink was far below just slinging mud. The current group must go! Where is Lieberman? Does he make too much sense?  
by CoF301 2005-01-25 02:12PM | 0 recs
Are Clarkies
freeping this poll? Clark has rocketed into the lead.

Ben P

by Ben P 2005-01-25 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Are Clarkies
See my posts above in this thread.  Yes, they are pushing the poll at various sites.
by concerned democrat 2005-01-25 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Are Clarkies
Who can blame them?  After all, he did so well in 2004!
by Drummond 2005-01-25 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Are Clarkies
See my post above, a reply to that explains it, I came here from a link at a Clark supporter site.
by Tom Rinaldo 2005-01-25 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Are Clarkies

Any other candidate's supporters are free to vote in this poll, and could link the poll on any site of theirs.

Could he be ahead because he actually has more supporters?

by tschmidty 2005-01-27 06:36AM | 0 recs
Voted for Boxer for sentimental reasons
I hope she runs in 08.  She can't win the nomination, but she can keep a progressive focus on the national political debate.

Gore, Kerry, and Clark could all guarantee close elections, but they don't inspire.  Obama inspires, but he's too green.

Unless another leader emerges over the next 3 years, I think the default candidate is Hillary C., who could either win or lose big.  Yes, she has a lot of baggage, but it's all out there.  There's nothing new to hit her with.

by Drummond 2005-01-25 03:12PM | 0 recs
Feingold could do it.  By then he will be in the Senate for 16 years.  He is a progressive and would represent the Dean wing.
by Max Friedman 2005-01-25 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Feingold
I aggree Feingold's positions on trade and the war make him the best general election canidate.  Also his integrity in opposing and not accepting congressional pay raises, his opposition to the patriot act, his vote for the 87 billion, his vote against the Iraq War, his more moderate gun control stance, and finally his opposition to NAFTA, Moroco, Chile, China, etc. trade agreements.  Now Feingold would need to select a Protestant Democrat preferably from the midwest, west, or south in that order, with the same with on trade as Feingold and preferably a governor, but not a must.  I don't know who would fit that role maybe Brad Henry from Oklahoma, maybe Dick Gephardt, maybe Byron Dorgan, or maybe Governor Brian Schweitzer.  Just some ideals I think Feingold would make a great President in alot of different areas and could appeal more in the midwest or rust belt than Kerry did this year.
by Painter2004 2005-01-25 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Feingold
I think either Richardson to bag the hispanic vote or Bayh would be great vp picks for Feingold.
by sam89 2005-01-26 12:38PM | 0 recs
Clark it is...
Wesley Clark is a classy candidate, and well-respected. I can already see the campaign buttons.

"Don't fear, the General is here... Clark 08'"

Seriously folks, the reason the Democratic Party just lost the last Presidential election was because more people trust the Republicans on national security issues. I think once we all own up to that fact, and stop running away from it, we can start solving that problem.

The fact that Clark was a former General isn't the only reason I think he should be the nominee. He's intelligent, classy, and is a little more "down home" than Kerry is.

I think nominating a strong leader like Clark, as well as a much better presented domestic agenda, and having a backbone, will help the Democrats win again.

by Thomas 2005-01-25 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark it is...
Clark was such a bad candidate in 2004.  He didn't know where to stand on the important issues, like Iraq and abortion.  He voted for Reagan and I just get a bad feeling about him since he became a Democrat when he ran for the nomination.  I don't think he has a real chance to get the nomination.  
by Max Friedman 2005-01-26 03:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark it is...
I agree that Clark probably wasn't ready for the nomination in 2004. You gotta remember that he's new at being a politician, but you get better with experience.

Im sure that in 1952, had Eisenhower been subjected to today's media scrutiny, he would've had some problems as well.

Give Clark some time.

As for a chance for the nomination, I agree. While Clark is the best chance for the Dems to win, he probably will be viewed as too conservative in the primaries.

It's kind of interesting that John McCain will be experiencing the same kind of problems in the 08' Republican primaries.

But we all know that if McCain gets through it, he may be unbeatable.

by Thomas 2005-01-26 04:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark it is...
Eisenhower was already famous because of World War II, a much bigger and harder war than Kosovo.  If he doesn't adapt to the media climate, he doesn't have a chance.  I do agree that if McCain gets the nomination, he is unbeatable, there is no chance of beating him since he will win Independents and many Democrats as well.  I wouldn't really mind him in the White House over any of the other contenders on the other side.
by Max Friedman 2005-01-26 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark it is...
Why don't you Clarkies get him to run for the governors mansion in Arkansas in 06. I clark wins it he would be propelled to national name recognition and could paint himself as the second coming of Clinton. I'm just telling you what I would do if I were in your position. I'm backing Feingold in 08.
by sam89 2005-01-26 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark it is...
Because we don't want to have to wait until 2016 for the president we were promised as kids.

I don't want him to be governor - he's got to much foreign policy and executive experience for that. He needs to be president or secretary of state.

by omramzey 2005-01-26 03:18PM | 0 recs
Clark '08
It's funny that if Clark actually has support, it must be freepers.

I love the guy, listening to him the guy just makes sense.

Kerry, no way, he showed his lack of courage in his concession, lack of response to the Vets, and will do much worse next time around. Proved every one of the repugs talking points, wishy washy, blow with the wind, take a stand already.

Edwards is still a lightweight and was invisible as a VP canidate. Clark was always more visible as a surrogate. I like the guy and hope he stays around to help the party, I worry he may disappear over the next few years, he doesn;t seem to get the media appearences.

Warner is my govenor, love the guy but I don't think he's ready to run for pres. I really hope he will run for senator against that travesty George Allen in 2006.

Feingold is another guy I absolutely love and think would be a great candidate. We'll see if he can get the national exposure.

Hillary, oh god kill me now, she will lose in a landslide. This sums up my feelings,

Clark is honestly our best chance to win the election, in my opinion. Whatever your feelings, there is no question he has great appeal to the center of this country. Every repug I talked with cited him as their biggest worry, because common sense centrists like his stance on things. The dems cannot stay anti-military in this climate and need to embrace national security issues. A lot of things can change between now and 2008 though.

Our biggest problem is the primaries, we need to get rid of this shortened primary, it killed us in that Kerry won because of his name recognition, period. If voters could have had a chance to learn about the candidates, we would have made a different choice I think. Either Edwards or Clark would have had a better chance than Kerry when push came to shove. And I think Clark had the best chance to win.

We can stick with our leftist, anti-military principles and watch the party decline on the national stage ir we can start talking about winning so we can actually move our ideas forward.

by tschmidty 2005-01-26 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark '08

The bogus primary system we have is why I fear Clark will never have a shot at the nomination, and it's sad, because like you said, Clark is the best shot at winning.

And as we've both pointed out, we lost the last election because people trusted the Republicans over the Democrats on national security.

With the war in Iraq and a never ending war on terrorism, the focus isn't likely to shift on this topic for a while. This is why I think John Edwards' political career may be over.

You can still have a sensible domestic policy that addresses health care, a fair minimum wage, and election reform, but if people are voting on national security, which people tend to do in a time of war, then we better nominate someone with some credibility on the issue.

by Thomas 2005-01-26 07:31PM | 0 recs
We'll just do the next poll without Clark.
by Jerome Armstrong 2005-01-26 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: anyway
Awww, comeone, you gotta be kiddin me!

What's next a DNC poll without Rosenberg?

by Reverend AlX 2005-01-26 10:42AM | 0 recs
Jerome, get off you high horse.  Why bother even having polls?  What the hell is the point if all you're gonna do is bitch and whine about who wins it.  So what if Clarkies came over here and voted, why didn't other people's supporters come over here and vote? Um, maybe they are not there?  Honestly, stop putting up polls if you're gonna bitch if it didn't go the way you wanted.  

I could accept people not wanting Clark to be their nominee, but you start bashing democrats whom many others love in 05, i wish us dems good luck in 08.  

by JAmbro 2005-01-27 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: A BIG F U.....just because we post links other
places doesn't mean everyone can't do the same thing.  
Why don't the Deaniacs do the same thing?
by Wesgal 2005-02-06 09:14AM | 0 recs
Clark who?
by Bean 2005-01-26 07:01PM | 0 recs
Just saw this at Taegan Goddard's:  

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) "hasn't announced plans to run for president in 2008, but at least two people have bought Internet domain names that would fit the bill," the Albuquerque Journal reports. "At least eight different Richardson-related Web site domain names, including '' and ',' have been registered with Network Solutions, a Virginia-based company that sells the names."

Political State Report has more on Richardson's possible aspirations.

by Bean 2005-01-26 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson?

Clark/Richardson 08' anyone?

by Thomas 2005-01-26 07:33PM | 0 recs
Way to go people
Yup, start bashing people.  Way to go.  Keep it up, maybe, maybe we'll win in like 2020.  My god, its fucking 2005, and you start Clark bashing already.  Get over yourselves.
by JAmbro 2005-01-27 10:13AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads