Isn't it a little early to declare defeat? Bush Light gives me heartburn. If Edwards and others continue to trail, some "consolidation" may occur.

If Hillary gets the nomination it will assure a close race in what should be a runaway for the dems. I the dmocrats want to regain the South they would be wise to put up Edwards, Obama or anyone other than Hillary.

The polls you chose to focus on have Hillary in the lead in the early states. Obama and Edwards supporters can point to other polls that have them in the lead. Howard Dean led all the polls in 2003 BUT he still ended up losing the nomination to someone that never led in the polls.

I saw an Edwards-Obama "08 bumper sticker on a car driving in Salem today. Perhaps that combo is just the panacea for Hillaryitis, plus it would be the NeoCons worst nightmare. They WANT to run against Hillary. They know exactly how to exploit her weaknesses and expand on the negative vibe some folks attach to the Clinton name. They've had 10 years to plan for exactly this "eventuality" that everyone says will come.

Don't forget the impact of women voters on this- as much as many women voters want to see a woman in the highest office in the land, many women voters are also more critical of women in such positions in ways they aren't with men. Of course, this is a simplistic argument, but I think it will have a bigger impact than current predictions allow. If only if we could really elect the best candidate on the basis of their abilities rather than race, gender, etc., but for any of these candidates, who knows how good or bad it will be until they're in office?

It's about perception, and how much you think you belong to the "club" that your chosen candidate belongs to. Perceptions can change on a dime- one "Macaca" moment can alter the course of history for these candidates. It's early in the race, a lot can change and likely will.

It ain't over until the fat lady sings, and I'm not even warming up yet.

One or more of the bloggers at Left in the West have analyzed polls that say Hillary will make Senate and Representative races very difficult in a number of western states, because her candidacy will reinvigorate the morale of the troops on the other side. It's too early to say that for sure, but it sounds reasonable.

Not to be too snarky, but one way that it could change is via her relationship with Murdoch. Can you imagine? Could he make Faux News get behind her?

In any case I will have a hard time voting for her: Iraq, free trade, tax policy, corporate lobbyist connections, etc.

My thesis was that the early leader tends to hold a lead as supporters--donors, activists, staffers, volunteers--become more and more anxious to be on the winning team.

Very good point but no slam dunk.

A recent Gallup poll gave similar numbers that only a small percentage have actually made up their mind and maybe 25% are actually paying attention to the primary campaign. This is not decided yet by a long ways. And Hillary.. sigh... this past week has made two huge mistakes that will haunt her. One was the speech at the VFW. The other, even worse, was a public repeating of Republican talking points suggesting that Republicans are better at keeping the country safe than Dems, the one exception being herself, of course. These gaffes reveal a poor political judgment and a lack of political skill. This thing is not over. Any one remember '04. Where was John Kerry at this point.. maybe about 11%. I think any of the top four are in striking distance right now. And Gore might pull a surprise and jump in. He has the cash to independently fund his own campaign. I was feeling "okay" about Hillary until this week.

My heart is with Barack, but my head says Hillary.

And judging by the way she is marauding towards the middle, I don't see anyone who can stop her from the White House and... wait for it... Secretary of State William Jefferson Clinton.

Unless, the Dems get a brokered convention, that'd be fun, with Al Gore grabbing the nomination without even running in a primary.

That, would be even more fun.

I like her better than Al D'Amato and Rudy Guiliani. I won't vote for her for president.

Sam Smith has done a tremendous job keeping things about Hilary from disappearing down the memory hole.

http://prorev.com/hillary.htm

Hilary is the GOP's preferred opponent by a loooong margin, and for two very good reasons: she would be the easier to beat than Obama or John Edwards, and she is the most Republican in her positions and instincts. If she wasn't Mrs. Clinton we wouldn't even be having this discussion, and that's no way to pick a president.

So far, I believe she's got the presidential doublespeak down pat.

On Iraq, she's beginning to distinguish a difference between her vote "back then" and her opinion "now", and between herself and Bush. However, if you listen to her talk about withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and the Middle East, she's not advocating for a "100%" pullout like Dennis is. Rarely will you hear any politician say "No permanent bases."

She's spoken of accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists, and I agree with her when she said that's not always a bad thing. According to opensecrets.org, when it comes to presidential recipients of campaign contributions, Hil is #1 overall. She's 3rd highest recipient of Oil & Gas industry contributions ($147,350), Rudy was first, and Mitt was second, and Dennis was 15th at $700 ("free" fill 'er up for the entourage while on the stomp that was reported??) See opensecrets for the breakdowns.

Accepting money from any lobbyist group at this time raises flags with me, perhaps I'm just too suspicious? I'm very concerned about this administration's interest in privatizing Iraqi oil (perceived or real, neocon vs. business version), and believe that keeping our troops in the Middle East to protect our interests in Iraqi oil is not only wrong, it is what is fueling the insurgency.

That we have invested billions in rebuilding four to six (or more?) airbases being constructed in Iraq for American use is of concern to me. Seymour Hersh, Thomas Ricks, and other trustworthy news sources have written about these over the past few years. Hillary recently mentioned that progress is being made in Anbar Province...the al-Asad Airbase, which is one of our largest, is located there. In an article I found online from 2006, it says that over 17,000 American troops were stationed there, with many of the "creature comforts" of home (except family). See this msnbc article.

I don't trust her, and am pretty sure I'm not going to vote for her in the primary. Too bad...but I won't betray humankind for my gender. As others have expressed, if she's the candidate, I'll support her as the lesser of two evils.

Any one remember '04. Where was John Kerry at this point.. maybe about 11%. I think any of the top four are in striking distance right now. And Gore might pull a surprise and jump in.

I sure hope you're right.

I absolutely, positively cannot stand Hillary Clinton -- her positions, her persona, whatever. And as George Seldes pointed out, she wouldn't be where she is now without her husband. That's not how the first female president (or anyone) should be elected. Just thinking about having to vote for her is painful! Republicans must be salivating at the prospect of having her as the nominee -- I wonder how many of them have contributed to her campaign.

And judging by the way she is marauding towards the middle, I don't see anyone who can stop her from the White House and... wait for it... Secretary of State William Jefferson Clinton.

I believe there is a law against nepotism that would preclude Slick Willie becoming SoS, but there probably is no law that will keep him from cashing by legal if dubious means in one way or another from being the First Husband.

As for Hillary, chances are the right-wingers are holding their fire so they can Swift Boat her if she gets the nomination. So what could be in their arsenal for attacking her? That is what Democrats should consider before giving her the nomination. Unfortunately, as Jeff noted, many people will vote for her because they assume she will be the winner and they want to be associated with the winner despite the intense feelings of others believing that she is a loser.

Although I think Hillary is too calculating to say anything which might inspire anyone not already a true believer, it is interesting to watch her campaign. But why the rush to judgement?

If August 2007 polls determine the eventual nominee, why drag all those Iowans out in the cold of a midwestern winter to meet with their friends and neighbors to go through the caucus process?

Why should candidates bother to show up in NH or Nevada (at least it generally doesn't snow in S. Carolina)? Why is Florida having such a battle with the DNC over the date of their primary if the nominee is already decided?

Call me crazy, but from the spring term in college when my friends and I supported Eugene McCarthy to the year I was a national convention delegate for a candidate who was not organized to run for president (in Oregon and probably in most other states), I don't remember a previous year when so many people wanted to declare the nomination over the previous August. Why have any more debates if the nominee is already decided?

Folks, this is the first truly open (in both parties) nomination battle in most people's lifetimes. What is the rush in making the nomination all cut and dried?

If someone thinks Hillary would make a great president, go out and campaign for her. But to those supporting someone else who have lost all hope in August of 2007, I say "Oh, ye of little faith".

And to those (incl. all those in the press who say stupid things like "yes this candidate is ahead in this state, but the national polls say...." as if all voters in that state will let the national polls do their thinking for them) trying to short circuit the process, they are just saying they don't want to see the process play out for whatever reason. Are they afraid voters might think independently about the candidates after the kids get sent off to school and college, plans for family Thanksgiving are set, and people start thinking past the holiday season and actually looking at the various candidates?

I am leaning towards one candidate but like hearing the others debate. And if that makes me some kind of subversive because I should just shut up and conform to the conventional wisdom that the nominee is already decided, tough luck.

Jeff, you have got to be kidding me. Unless you have your tounge in your cheek or are trying to motivate the anti-Hillary folks to work harder, I have no idea where you are coming from with such doom and gloom in August.

Are you familiar with the historical failures of early front runners?

Did you know that a recent poll showed Obama, Edwards and Hillary in a deadheat in Iowa? Do you know that Senator Obama has more field offices in Iowa than any other candidate (Approx. 219 to Hillary's 100 something). He has an energized grassroots campaign that is full of young people who have been out en masse going door to door for him from New Hampshire to California.

Did you know Senator Obama has been shown leading in the South Carolina polls? So in the first three primary States, he is in very good shape.

The National polls are worthless, we all know that.

So please lose the doom and gloom. It is way out of step with the candidate of hope for change that we are supporting.

<hr/>

And what do I think of Hillary. She's a nice lady, I loved her Barbara Walters interview post Monica. Very remarkable how she pulled through that mess.

But as a politician, she is all about status quo, big money interests. Her committment to lobbyists is embarrassing.

And don't get me started on Iraq. Read "Hillary's War" the NY Times Magazine article, google it. She didn't read the NIE Report pre-war, that would have shown her that WMD was in doubt, voted for the War as political ploy, voted against the Byrd Amendment that would have required futher diplomacy, towed the line for years even saying "stay the course" and other Cheney like remarks, started her anti-war stance only last year, again strictly to help her electablity, and now acts like all the candidates are the same on Iraq. Hogwash.

Watching her in the debates, and her criticisms of Barack on foreign policy, she has acted so disingeniously it is scary. Saying Barack is inexperienced for making the same statements she has made? Come on. Its as if she is counting on the ignorance of the populace to vote for her just because she is Hillary Clinton. Those of us that are paying attention don't buy it. Not for a minute.

Let's pray that she doesn't get the nomination. You know the Repubs. are hoping she is nominated since her negatives are so high, she will energize their base, and actually give them a shot of winning in 2008. She will not get any crossover support and little support from independents.

Barack Obama, in contrast, has strong appeal among independents, has an awful lot of Republicans who like him as well, and even poses the threat of taking many States in the South. This will prevent the Repubs. from focusing on an Ohio or a Florida where we have seen their monkey business.

We need to turn the page on the Northeast centered strategy failures of Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. We need a candidate that can put the South in play and that is not Edwards, its not Hillary, it is Barack Obama.

So don't bring that negativism around here please. We need to start looking forward. That's what America wants. We will get a glimpse of the future on September 7th when Barack Obama comes to Portland. Let's all make a concerted effort to get there and take a look at the next President of the United States.

Hillary will win the Dem. nomination as long as the MSM keeps putting out polls saying she is in the lead, is gaining, etc.

Hillary will win the Dem. nomination as long as John and Jane Q. Public keep following the polls, believing in the MSM and the polls as "truth", and despite the possibility of thinking outside the box and looking at other candidates and at other political parties, will instead vote for Hillary afterall, irregardless of whether they like her or not. (I just read a poll that claims only 1/3 of us are really interested in U.S. politics. Made me realize there is justification for the anger of those who have been screaming WAKE UP SHEEPLE.)

Is it just me who has this thinking, or are too few people simply not fed up enough with having to choose between the lesser of two evils?

Despite what a previous poster claims, both parties are essentially the same in that both cater to the will and demands of Big Biz over the needs of the people. The Dems may pump more money into social service programs and the like (while ignoring some of the causes that ensure these programs are needed), but Big Biz still has our political system by the, well, you know...

Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and she will win the general election, although by a smaller margin than another candidate with the same political views would, because of her past and her husband.

And she will be a great President, just like her husband was. And the reaosn she will be a great President is that she will not govern from the left as many (but nowhere near a majority of Americans) want her to.

I will never vote for Hillary. You can look to the past for some things but, nothing ever plays out the same twice. You always look for the unexpected and right now with most people not set on a candidate you cannot predict anything. If you want to point to things as fact then, in the last primaries Liebermann looked like a sure bet for awhile until Dean came along and was proclaimed inevitable like Hillary is now. How'd that work out? Most strategists and poll people know that about 15 to 20 percent of Hillary's support is very soft and will come off in the fall. They also said the race is much much closer and tighter than many think. Unlike Edwards and Obama , Hillary doesn't have deep and passionate support. Many are like it's a chore to support her but, say they LEAN that way for now. the polling counts it but, knows this is subject to change. Plus Hillary, being that well known is at the peak. She is not going to get much new in support and as people pay attention they will start to know the positions of the candidates and move away from Hillary. Too bad, it's not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination. I would also urge you to study Obama's senate primary race where another well funded inevitable did not become the party nominee. it was not until right before the actual election that things took a huge swing in Obama's favor. So you want to look into past history, this may be something to keep in mind.

sorry. on the too bad, I left out msm. it's suppose to read Too bad, msm. Again, do not underestimate Obama. He is a force to be reckoned with. He started out in Feb. with very little organization in temporary offices and little money. Nothing that could go against the well oiled Clinton machine. But, he beat her in fundraising. No one was suppose to come close. he built his campaign into a well run organization with 30 offices in iowa while no one was looking. they just seemed to pop out all at once. Obama has a very well thought out strategy and his close advisors have been trying to keep him from peaking early. It is planned after labor day to let him loose. The first months were casting nets and pulling people in. the next chunk was organizing and the people pulled in to be a ground force and grassroots and voters. It was also about laying out policy and giving more depth to the vision. After Labor Day it will be a more forceful campaign.

This is certainly looking like it may be a watershed moment for the Democratic party. The experiment with running to the right and giving up on traditional Democrats could be headed for a referendum in '08.

If the Democrats haven't lost the Democratic side of the party, and they support the party in '08 like they did in '06, then the new right wing Democratic party stays intact and the move to the right is a fact. Of course the Republicans must move even further right than they are now to differentiate themselves.

Put me in the “would rather eat ground glass that vote for Hillary” column.

If her lack of governmental experience weren’t enough reason to oppose her then her unbridled support of Bush’s war would be.

Politically she’s a risky nominee for the Dems. There’s a reason she ran for the New York senatorial seat and not one from her home state. Also, she’ll have trouble getting independent voters and far-left/anti-war Dems to support her. And when’s the last time a senator from a northeast state made it to the White House?

In spite of all this, something tells me her handlers will muscle her to the nomination over her weak, less politically opportunistic challengers. Let’s hope I’m wrong and you Dems give us someone of substance to vote on in ‘08.

Given the choice of eating ground glass or voting for Hillary, I'll vote for her. There are several other alternatives- major surgery w/o anesthesia, a decade of manual labor in Iraq, or a marathon Andre Rieu concert, for instance- that might convince me to vote for her. (OK, scratch the last). Neither is the prospect of a Republican president with a solid Democratic majority in Congress is one of them.

My sincere hope is for a brokered convention. One at which that Hillary holds only 40-45% of the committed delegates and that the remaining can be mobilized to support another candidate (say, Al Gore) particularly if Senator Clinton is offered the Vice President's job. She would still be making history and accepting a position for which she is probably fairly well equipped.

I will support any other Democratic candidate with relative enthusiasm, but I will vote for Hillary at the top of the ticket only if John McCain heads the Republican ticket or if Jeb Bush is running as VP with ANY nominee... including Barack Obama.

There's a lot of talk among the Repukes about Hillary's "negatives," but I'm sure about 70% of Americans (i.e., everybody but the loony right-wing fringe that now constitutes "the Republican Party") has very positive memories of the Clinton administration as a time of peace and prosperity, and that's helping Hillary.

"What I don't want is a President who spends a large portion of the time fending off right wing nutzos and their fabricated whacko conspiracy theories."

It'd be a hell of a note if we let the right-wing wackos dictate who our candidate is. I'm not a Hillary fan, but I think that's an incredibly dumb reason to oppose her nomination.

Footnote to previous: We know damn well that the Repukes will try to slime ANY candidate we choose, so why worry about Hillary in particular?

"We're not in the third inning of this game; August is the 7th-inning stretch."

Uh, Jeff, this is August 2007, not August 2008.

Mrs Clinton is my least favorite candidate. She is too wedded to the DLC for my tastes. GATT and NAFTA which were passed by Congress and signed into law by her husband have been disastrous for the working men and women of this country. Bill Clinton was a good President in comparison to the recent republicans ones but he was not without his policy mistakes

In this election Democrats should forget about the DLC 'republican lite' approach (the rich will always do well) and get back to their roots as the party of working class men and women. The poor and the middle class are hurting and what the Democratic Party needs to do is to ride to their rescue. What we don't need is both parties being primarily concerned only about the health and well being of the corporations and the hyper-wealthy.

Mark me down in the in the 'anyone but Clinton' camp.

It would be nice to have some comments from Hillary supporters so we can understand why they prefer her. Have they considered some of her history as co-president with Bill Clinton?

In an episode of "60 Minutes" featuring Madeleine Albright, the Clinton's secretary of state, the interviewer noted that while the Clintons ran the White House and US-sponsored, UN sanctions were in place in Iraq, an estimated half million Iraqi children died as a consequence of these sanctions. Albright said, "It was worth it." It would appear Hillary and Bill also thought it was worth it. Did she?

To try to get the very popular but over-rated Colin Powell on their side, the Clintons appointed his son, Michael, to be chairman of the FCC. In that position Powell was a major force in allowing consolidation of mainstream media under larger and fewer corporations thus creating and increasing one of the greatest threats to what is left of our democracy.

Then there is the deeply flawed NAFTA that Hillary supported.

When she became senator she took an oath to defend the Constitution, but after a lecture on senators' Constitutional responsibilities by Senator Byrd Hillary and 76 other senators (including Gordon Smith) showed their oaths meant nothing to them. Her claim about not reading the NIE before her vote is a dodge that the ill-informed will buy, but it is as worthless as her word.

So, Hillary supporters. Let's hear it from you.

Dear Registered Democrats,

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Vote for Hillary Clinton in your primary.

Sincerely,

Karl Rove and every Republican activist in the United States

Jeff says: Pollster's national trend has Hillary at 38.7%, Obama at 22%, and Edwards at 10.8%.

Another way to look at it is that Hillary's numbers among Democrats are equivalent to the country's approval ratings for Bush. She may be leading the pack according to polls, but that's a long way from gaining a majority.

I'm astonished they can "sell" Hillary for her "experience". Since when is [b]Society Matron[/b] and [b]First Lady[/b] a job description. Given that every achievement she has is leveraged from her husband's career, I'd say that she has far less practical political experience than Obama.

I won't vote for Hillary in the primaries and I pray someone else will get the nomination. Her record in voting for the Bankruptcy act (which is wrecking the middle class), the Patriot Act (which is wrecking the constitution) and all her other actions show her as firmly to the right of most Americans in a time when we need someone with the real life experience, moral character and vision to lead this country into positive changes.

To repeat a point I made in an earlier thread, 2008 is shaping up for a year in which voters should say they have had enough of voting for the lesser evil, especially when the evils appear to get worse with each succeeding election. What an impact this would have on world opinion if American voters projected a message of rejecting pro-war and pro-corporation candidates. Of course, most voters will buy into the fearmongering that the other is a greater evil and will vote for the one they believe to be the lesser, but if my choice is Hillary or one of the current leading disasters from the other party, then I'll vote for someone else or write in the name of some decent, civilized human being. Probably, Bill Moyers.

In the meantime, if rank-and-file Democrats want to win and make a move towards uniting the nation, they should consider an Obama/Edwards ticket. I have reservations about both of them and am confident that the DLC and their minions in Congress - Harry Reid and nancy pelosi and cohorts - will gang up on them as their predecessors did with Jimmy Carter, but they would be better than Hillary, Rudy, Mitt and "Straight Talk with the forked tongue."

Mmmmmm. I love the smell of self-destructing Democrats in the morning.

"...marauding towards the middle..."

What "middle" is that? Hillary was correct when she, in defending her husband, complained of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", but she and Bill are members of that conspiracy and not its victims.

And those who claim that she is the lesser of two evils and that they therefore will support her are not "middle" either.

For some reason, Bill Bodden insists on misquoting Madelyn Albright. What she said was, "WE think [500,000 dead Iraqi children] was worth the price."

For some reason, Bill Bodden insists on misquoting Madelyn (sic) Albright. What she said was, "WE think [500,000 dead Iraqi children] was worth the price."

Thank you for the correction about what Madeleine Albright said and confirmed at FAIR. It strengthens my point about Bill and Hillary's complicity.

Another point related to the half million Iraqi children who died because of sanctions in place in Iraq that should be noted is this crime against humanity infuriated many Arabs and Muslims throughout the Middle East and encouraged recruits to join the jihad or terrorism, depending on how you look at it, against the United States. This barbarism was a factor in 9/11 so we can make the reasonable assumption that even if Gore had been elected instead of Bush being appointed to the presidency, 9/11 would very likely have still occurred and with Joseph Lieberman (Dem-CT and Likud ambassador to the senate) as his vice president we might still have had a war on Iraq. Or, perhaps we should say, continued the war on Iraq since our air force had been bombing Iraq from 1998 in accordance with orders from their commanders-in-chief (Bill and Hillary) in the White House.

Mmmmmm. I love the smell of self-destructing Democrats in the morning.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that some Democrats are trying to clean up their act and independents are encouraging them to do so.

Why all the excitement for Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton? She is a certain recipe for defeat for the democrats. All republicans continue salivating over the prospect of her nomination. In fact they are doing everything to promote it. It is my firm believe that Rove has probably put out a manual to republicans on how to cross-vote in the demo primaries where this can be done to vote for Mrs. Clinton v. her opponents. Having said this, I continue with the refrain that any white male republican that they put up to run against Mrs. Clinton will hand her a defeat worse that the likes of McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale...Go ahead masochistic defeatist democrats nominate Mrs. Clinton and give the republicans their fondest wish and continue to wallow in your pitiful campaign strategy and tactics misery. With her thorough ass kicking defeat in 2008 this may be and perhaps just as well the death of the democrat party!

No, you had me until this "death of the democrat party!"

Hillary Clinton will or will not get the DEMOCRATIC nomination, and anyone who uses your language is either a Republican, lingusitically lazy, or hanging around with Republicans.

Can anyone imagine Hilary giving this speech? Or sounding like a Democrat this much?

http://www.alternet.org/story/60748/?page=1

FIRST THREE PRIMARIES

State Poll End date Clinton Obama Edwards

Iowa Zogby Aug. 18 30% 19% 23%

Iowa ABC/WPst Jul 31 26% 27% 26%

New Hampshire ARG July 30 31% 31% 14%

South Carolina ARG July 30 29% 33% 18%

Christ, I can't believe the tone of this thread and the anti-Clinton hysteria. For the record, Hillary is my first choice and I will be thrilled if she wins our party's nomination. She is tough as nails and will fight harder and smarter than any of her competitors against the GOP in the fall. What she has been through over the past two decades would wilt most politicians, yet she wakes up every morning and keeps on fighting.

Who cares which candidates the Republicans want to win the nomination. Should we really base our choices on Karl Rove's perverse view of the world? If you will recall back to 2000, the rebublicans were pretty eager to taker her on and embarass her in the NY senate campaign and she won by 12%.

While Obama and Edwards are not my first choice (they seem like such lightweights to me), I will gladly support them or any of the other Democratic candidates if they win the nomination.

Go Hillary! It may be lonely being a Hillary supporter among the Blue Oregon crowd, but we are here... and by the looks of the polls we are not in the minority among Democrats.

It'd be a hell of a note if we let the right-wing wackos dictate who our candidate is. I'm not a Hillary fan, but I think that's an incredibly dumb reason to oppose her nomination.

Maybe. But one of the things that is most frustrating to me about Bill Clinton's presidency is the lost potential. Because of the early scandals, followed by the BIG scandal, Clinton's eight years were far less successful than they otherwise could have been. He was an almost perfect combination of political mastermind and policy whiz. Yet there were long periods when the White House just shut down in terms of a policy agenda because they were in full defensive mode.

Is this Bill's fault? Well, on Whitewater and travelgate, no. On keeping his pants zipped, yes. Certainly the Republican spin machine will go after any Democratic president, but with Hillary they already have eight years of opposition research. They will absolutely shut down her presidency starting on day one.

So is that a valid reason to support Obama or Edwards? Not if you agree with Hillary on policy issues -- that should be your primary decision point. But if, like me, you sort of figure all three are going to govern the same on about 90% of issues, it makes me wonder if we'd have a much better chance at actually solving some of our problems if we go with Obama or Edwards, rather than just fighting more partisan battles if we go with Clinton.

As for those refusing to vote for Hillary no matter what, did Nader not teach any of you a lesson? Voting for the lesser of two evils in a two-party race is your obligation. . .otherwise, you're helping the greater of two evils win, and you can't absolve yourself of that culpability just by claiming "principle." I actually blame Nader voters for the general destruction caused by Bush more than I blame Bush himself. After all, Bush did just what he said he would do, while Nader voters just whined about ideological purity. Well, your ideological purity fucked the rest of us. Thanks!

Brian, I really don't care who the Republicans want us to run, I'd just rather run a Democrat than Hillary. Secondly, if you read the polls as not being in the minority you certainly engage in the same kind of wishful thinking that would make Hillary a Democrat in anything other than the "D" afer her name. 39% for Hillary is also 61% for anybody other than Hillary. Jeff, read that. 61%

A certain amount of take a chill pill is in order, with this many candidates in the polls somebody is going to lead and if they are as well known as Hillary, that 61% is not a negligible number, it has acutal meaning and that meaning is fatal for Hillary if the pack thins. Rest assured that nobody who supports one of the "other than Hillary" candidates is going to switch to her if their candidate bows out. If it goes to the convention, she's dead.

Miles & Stephanie...I tend to agree with you, but don't expect the purists to convert before their death beds are made.

Or, simply admit that Billary is a non-starter and fight like hell for Option B. Cause Option B is the only one that can be a Republican.

Or, cue the Guiliani orchestra roll, and VOTE GREEN!

Brian, in 1972 Nixon won the election by sabatoging the Muskie campaign in the Dem primaries.

The story goes that the polling showed he would not beat Ed Muskie in a general election. But there was one candidate that the polls showed he would beat: George McGovern.

So the Republican strategy of winning the the general election by "picking your opponent" was born. And in 2008, Hillary is the one that Repubs desperately want to run. They can't get their people fired up about any of their candidates. Nope. But they sure can fire up their people if Hillary Clinton's name is on the ballot.

"I actually blame Nader voters for the general destruction caused by Bush more than I blame Bush himself."

Absolutely amazing! Seven years later and some die-hard Dems still don’t get it. They’re still in denial that Gore was a lousy candidate who ran a miserable campaign. Nader was a breath of fresh air people could believe in. That’s why principled people gravitated to him.

If Hillary gets the nomination let’s hope Nader’s got one more run in him.

I'm a woman and I can't stand her. Edwards is a far better candidate for women. She'll drag down our chances out oust Smith. Please, no more DLC corporate creeps. Down with Hillary.

As for those refusing to vote for Hillary no matter what, did Nader not teach any of you a lesson? Voting for the lesser of two evils in a two-party race is your obligation. . .otherwise, you're helping the greater of two evils win, and you can't absolve yourself of that culpability just by claiming "principle." I actually blame Nader voters for the general destruction caused by Bush more than I blame Bush himself. After all, Bush did just what he said he would do, while Nader voters just whined about ideological purity. Well, your ideological purity fucked the rest of us. Thanks!

Stephanie: We definitely disagree on this one. I submitted an article to Blue Oregon shooting down this nonsense about Nader, Gore and Bush, but it apparently didn't make the cut so I'll submit a summary of a couple of points, not that it will have any effect on people like you and Miles who will probably go to your graves believing that drivel.

First of all, Gore ran a pathetic campaign and he was equally derelict when Jeb Bush's and Kathleen Harris's dirty tricks at the polls became obvious. Gore stood by and let them get away with it and the shredding the Constitution it implied. He was indifferent to the thousands of African-Americans (mostly Democrats) who were denied their voting rights. Clearly, Gore was no Viktor Yushchenko. Do you remember that scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 when members of the Congressional Black Caucus protested the election and denial of civil rights for African-Americans and Gore, as president of the Senate, gaveled them down?

Second and contrary to Miles' claptrap, Bush never gave the slightest indication he would wage war on Iraq. In fact, Bush said he was opposed to nation building and would have a humble foreign policy - the exact opposite of what we got.

Third: Gore was in the White House with Bill and Hillary when they were maintaining the US-sponsored, UN sanctions on Iraq that cost an estimated half a million Iraqi children their lives and from 1998 they waged a bombing campaign to soften up the Iraqis, littering the country with depleted uranium that continues to cause health problems to this day. These were among other motivating factors behind 9/11 which would still have taken place if Gore had been elected, and with Joseph Lieberman (Dem-CT and Likud ambassador to the senate) as his V-P Gore might also have waged war on Iraq.

Now look at Hillary from an Arab/Muslim point of view. She was in league with the president of the United States maintaining sanctions against Iraq that cost 500,000 Iraqi children their lives and made life miserable for all others that survived. For Arabs and Muslims this was deja vu all over again. Another Christian Crusade against them. If Hillary gets in the White House the dictators in the Middle East receiving baksheesh from us won't have any problems, but those in what is generally referred to as the Arab street will. Not much hope for the war on terror ending with this Christian Crusader in the White House.

What you have to understand about Arabs and Muslims is that they tend to get emotional when things like half a million of their children are victims of manslaughter. They are not sophisticated like those of us in the West with its tradition of mass slaughter and who have learned to accept this sort of thing as another day in the empire.

If you vote for the lesser evil, you get evil. And recent history has shown that with each succeeding presidential election the evils become more so. Do we have a Hitler or Stalin or Chairman Mao waiting in the wings?

I have reservations about Obama and Edwards, but if they join forces and get elected then perhaps they can reverse this trend towards greater evil a little.

If Hillary wins the Primary, Democrats lose the race.

Guaranteed.

She will mobilize the right - too many people HATE her. And she does not hold the best support on the left either.

Richardson is the Democrats most electable candidate, but does not stand a snowballs chance in hell at getting through the Primaries. Overall I believe Edwards to be the best chance at winning the big one.

One more time: Hillary loses the presidency to Republicans. Guaranteed.

As a woman I have to say, I am so happy there's a viable female candidate. Now when my niece wears her "I can be President" button she actually feels like it's a true statement.

from Why Cheney Really Is That Bad, http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070821_why_cheney_really_is_that_bad/

"In an effort that is curiously Rovian in the quest for electoral victory, the Democratic candidates (with a few notable exceptions) have been less than bold in their opposition to the heinous policies that are currently in place concerning Iraq, Iran, the war on terror, torture and constitutional violations-unless you count empty rhetoric.

In many ways, the leading Democrats, both those running for office and those currently holding office, are a far greater insult to American values than the conservative standard-bearers for the policies of Cheney.

No one of substance takes seriously the manic ranting of the Hannity/Limbaugh/Coulter triad. These Democrats, on the other hand, have mastered the art of compromise to the point that they stand for nothing at all-this at a time in American history when the policies of the administration, derived from the dark abyss of Bush’s soul, Cheney, provide the most concrete example of what we as Americans should be standing against.

The Democrats need to stand for something. Cheney has provided the sort of political ammunition that would enable them to fight, and win, a constitutional battle over the heart of America, the kind of defining struggle which I believe the vast majority of Americans would rally around.

Unless the Democrats start separating themselves from the policies of the Bush administration, and take an active role in outing and suppressing the true evil that is Dick Cheney, all they will achieve in the coming years is a change in the titular political orientation of America, without the kind of deep-seated break from the failures and crimes of the past six-plus years that have taken our nation, and the world, right up to the edge of chaos.

“Bush’s Brain” may be gone, but his “Soul” lives on."

Hillary woudn't amount to much if it wasn't for her husband who was a very talented pol. So how exactly is a vote for Hillary a vote for progress?

If anything, voting for Hillary is just a vote for a woman who is so calculating that she stayed by her man while he publically humiliated her. She must have known that she didn't have a chance by herself so she took whatever Bill dished out just to keep her poll numbers up. Anyone so lacking in character wouldn't seem to be a good choice for the office of President.

One quick try to get rid of the italics, but I doubt it will work.

Bill and Buckman Res, you seem to be saying that you think Gore would have made a worse president than Bush. Bill implies that he would have gone to war in Iraq, that he is already responsible for killing 500,000 Iraqi children, and so on. Do you really believe, after seven years of Bush, that Al Gore would have been worse? If so, why didn't you vote for Bush, in order to save us from Gore? Why would you leave it up to chance that the evil Al Gore might actually get elected?

Frankly, the view that Gore would have been worse than Bush is so far off base that I'm not sure it's worth continuing this discussion. But it's the 2nd reason you give that I find more intriguing:

"If you vote for the lesser evil, you get evil. And recent history has shown that with each succeeding presidential election the evils become more so."

Fine, a lot of Nader voters said this in 2000. The argument from Nader supporters was quite stark -- if so many people vote for Nader that Gore loses, it will send the Democrats into such convulsions that they will never again run a centrist candidate like Gore.

So after seven years, how can you possibly still believe that? What changes have you wrought, what revolution have you caused?

Answer: None. When you vote for the lesser of two evils, your get. . . .lesser evil. When you waste your vote on a candidate who will not win, you throw the election to the worse candidate. You and your fellow Naderites did that, and you have nothing to show for it. You are responsible for the destruction wrought by this Administration. The reckless hubris you show in asserting that you would do the same thing again is astonishing.

I'm hoping the Hillary/Obama circus will cancel out the two of them. I like Edwards as a lesser of evils, he looks good on paper, though a learned friend of mine from North Carolina says NEVER trust a NC politician. whadayagonnado?

If a third party and their candidate had any strength and were singing a song I could harmonize with, they might just get my vote, so disillusioned am I with the status quo. But I wouldn't throw that vote away on a hopeless candidate, and there lies the rub.

As far as the next presidential race goes, I think we should expect the unexpected. I'd be surprised if anything turns out the way the polls are indicating now.

And if Hillary wins will we call her President Hillary? At what point would we give up calling her by her first name? I just can't remember any candidate for any position who has been referred to consistently by their first name. It just seems fluffy and not right for Democrats to be referring to a serious presidential candidate by their first name exclusively. It's, like, disrespectful....and what the OTHER side would be calling her. but I guess that's okay with me, cuz I don't like her, and if she's nominated I think it will lose us the election....same with Obama.

I'll say it out loud: after 8 years of excruciatingly bad leadership, and the raping of the Constitution...this is no time to test whether or not America will vote in their first woman, or first black president. DON'T CHANCE IT!

Bill and Buckman Res, you seem to be saying that you think Gore would have made a worse president than Bush. Bill implies that he would have gone to war in Iraq, that he is already responsible for killing 500,000 Iraqi children, and so on. Do you really believe, after seven years of Bush, that Al Gore would have been worse? If so, why didn't you vote for Bush, in order to save us from Gore? Why would you leave it up to chance that the evil Al Gore might actually get elected?

Miles, I'm probably wasting my time on you, but I would suggest you read what I wrote - not what you think I wrote or what you might want to believe I wrote. I said that Gore might also have gone to war on Iraq. That is entirely different from saying Gore would have been worse than Bush. To put it another way, you have made a gross distortion of what I said. To me that indicates one of two possibilities: slovenly thinking on your part or deliberate dishonesty.

The second part of your screed begins with my quote about voting for the lesser evil and getting evil then you go on to try to make the point that the lesser evil is okay. Well, the people in Louisiana and New Orleans have been subscribing to that asinine and abysmal concept for generations and look at the human disasters they have become. Is that your model for the United States? New Orleans was clobbered with flooding from Katrina, but it wouldn't have been as bad if government officials had been competent and not functioning according to their traditional corrupt system. Several parts of Europe were severely flooded during the last couple of years, but they are all back to or close to normal now. A major difference is that corruption is much less of a problem there than in New Orleans and Louisiana. The Europeans, in general, don't subscribe to the mindless idea of voting for the lesser evil so they have much less corruption than we have. The Netherlands (Holland) has about a third of its land below sea level and has been protected from constant North Sea winter storms by dikes for centuries without anything like what New Orleans when through. Why is that the case? Because they don't settle for the lesser evil when they vote for their governments.

Before you make another blunder reading what I wrote, note that I said that corruption is less of a problem in Europe and that I didn't say corruption doesn't exist in Europe.

Now, back to Gore. One more time: Gore ran a pathetic and incompetent campaign. That and the fact that he didn't raise enough hell over the dirty tricks in Florida and insist on an honest vote even if it meant another election there are the reasons Gore lost.

Someone up the thread brought up the horrific thought of Republicans crossing over to vote for Clinton in the primaries of states which allow that. I am very concerned and sent the DNC an e-mail today on that subject. If the Republicans are truly trying to maneuver Clinton into the nomination, I can see that being a real part of their play book. This is what they did in Connecticut in the general election in 2006 between Lieberman and Lamont. I hope state Democratic parties will reconsider and prohibit cross-overs, and independents for that matter, in time for the primaries.

I say this as a non-affiliated voter who votes Democratic and who considers Clinton not a progressive or liberal at all. Many of you probably remember a little spell in the '80s when the Oregon Republican Party allowed independents to vote in their primary. I was one of them, and I voted in it solely to try to derail Senator Packwood. So having been a culprit myself, I am really afraid that many Republicans will crossover in an attempt to obstruct the wishes of Democrats in these states. That, IMHO, would amount to yet another stolen election.

If Hillary can't win a state like Oregon, then stick a fork in her and move on.

And if Hillary wins will we call her President Hillary? At what point would we give up calling her by her first name? I just can't remember any candidate for any position who has been referred to consistently by their first name. It just seems fluffy and not right for Democrats to be referring to a serious presidential candidate by their first name exclusively. It's, like, disrespectful.

What about campaign slogans of the past like "I like Ike" or "Give them hell, Harry"? It's easier to refer to Hillary Clinton as Hillary to distinguish her from her husband.

I'm puzzled by those who say that Hillary occupies her current station in life only because of her marriage.

Nobody would know who she is if her husband hadn't been President. That's a fact. A First Lady does not have the same duties and responsibilities as the President.

The fact is, she is a very smart cookie and a Wellesley College / Yale Law graduate, every bit as intelligent and driven as her husband, and far more disciplined to boot. She could very easily have achieved all of this and more under her own steam if she had not laid her own ambitions aside and moved to Arkansas with him to help him establish his own political career. We'll never know for sure, of course, but I'd bet she'd be AT LEAST a US Senator by now in any event.

This is all daydreaming. We don't know if she decided to quit her career to support her husband or if she just couldn't cut it. But it was her choice and her decision.

Even her actions as First Lady pale beside such giants as Eleanor Roosevelt who took great risks to promote civil rights and equality at a time when the KKK still had a lot of power in the country.

When black churches, gay nightclubs, and women's clinics were systematically destroyed by arson, bombings, and nutcases with guns. Hillary didn't say a word. She didn't do a damn thing when she was First Lady when it involved some risk and could have made a difference.

Hillary's a follower, not a leader. A wealthy Society Matron who does good works is not a seasoned politician ready for the prime time as President of the United States.

Is this a Democracy or an oligarchy where only two families have people fit to be President in a population of 300 million for over 20 years?

Senator Clinton has a voting record on which she can run. I'ts not about what one says but about ones vote.

I find it fascinating that the discussion is yet again "I favor xxx because they are not as bad as the Republican candidate(s)."

Have we given up on the Democratic Party actually having a clear position and programs to address the war in Iraq, corruption in government, universal health care, global warming, the end of cheap energy, etc. etc.?

Each election cycle it becomes more and more clear why increasing numbers of potential voters don't bother.

Wouldn't it be nice to vote FOR someone, not simply attempting damage control by voting against someone else?

<h2>Who stole our political party? How can we take it back? (The state party is bulwarked against constituent input.)</h2>