Hillary Clinton will be competitive in Oregon if the Republican nominee is tied too closely to President Bush.

Difficult to figure into this equation is democratic enthusiasm vs republican party meltdown. Republicans don't like their choice of candidates, democrats do. Republicans don't have an anointed successor like they usually do so the fight for the nomination will be a real fight this time with all the low blows and mud slinging of a circular firing squad in the primaries. They are not a party of happy campers. What does the party even stand for anymore? Torture? Bush has ruined the republican party 'brand' for years to come among many independent and young voters. Conservatism turns out to be allot like communism; looks good on paper but flops in actual real world practice. Most of the top republican contenders are currently rying to 'out-bloodthirsty' each other. Hell, Mitt wants to double Guantanamo and Rudy wants to invade the rest of the world and build a fence across our southern border. It's kill, kill, kill 24-7 for these guys. Lastly, although Mrs. Clinton is my least favorite democratic presidential candidate, she has of late shown me some campaigning skills similar to her husband. When attacked, she's hit back, hit them hard and hit them often. (I call it the General Ulysses S. Grant approach)I think that 'take no shit' approach is a winner for her. I'll vote for her just to piss of Karl Rove, Hannity and the rest of the knuckle-dragging crowd. There is a long way to go and many situations to play out before we will have any idea who really is going to carry Oregon. My guess is, I think it will stay on it's current democratic course.

I'd have to agree that Oregon is still well in the toss-up collumn in the next Presidential race. I still believe Hillary can win it, but it will be close. Hillary has more to fear from the far Left than the Right which means her choice of a running mate is going to be very important to solidify the base.

The comparison of Clinton and Smith on Iraq is interesting. Which is the stronger opponent of administration policy? I've heard Senator Smith criticize the occupation in fairly strong terms. I don't remember anything as stern from Senator Clinton

The Democratic nominee should be more than competitive in Oregon. This is a state trending blue. We were bluer in 2004 than we were in 2000. And we are certainly bluer now than we were in 2004. Bush's approval rating is 34 to 61 here according to a June Hibbitts poll. And it's not just Bush. Look at our House, our Senate, our Governor. Indeed, after the 2004 election, political analysts declared that the West Coast was no longer battleground territory. It should not be. But it very well could if Hillary's the nominee.

Gag me.

Remember when she came to Portland in 2005 to raise money solely for herself until she was shamed into giving a little pittance to the DPO? Literally shamed into it. Just shoot me now.

When it comes to close elections, the decision will be made in the rural counties. Yes, they will predominately vote Republican, but the margin is the issue.

I recently asked the Central Committee of the the Crook Co. Democrats in a straw pole type informal manner who they supported. Hillary got a couple of votes, but generally was not doing so well.

I think that Hillary would do much less well than Kerry in rural Oregon, and that alone is enough to tip the scales - depending on who the Republican is.

Which is another way to get to this. If rural people are faced with what they consider to be two bad choices, perhaps they will not vote at all - or vote straight party line. If Hillary runs, surpressing rural votes, a completely unAmerican tactic, would be her only chance.

Hillary defeats any GOP candidate in Oregon

I'm a life-long Democrat. I'd love to have a woman president. I think Bill Clinton was the best president since Jimmie Carter. Why do I whince every time I see or hear Senator Clinton?

I'll vote for whomever the Dem candidate turns out to be, but Hillary as the candidate is a win-win for the Repugs.

I can't stand Hillary, her stance on the war and her corporate shilling. That said, if it came down to her vs. Guilianni (sp) or any of those psychos for that matter? I have to face it that in my opinion, she is the lesser of two evils.

I'll vote for her just to piss of (sic) Karl Rove, Hannity and the rest of the knuckle-dragging crowd.

In other words, the "knuckle-dragging crowd" will decide who you will vote for.

Consider this negative about Hillary that appears not to have been discussed so far. Madeleine Albright had the point made to her on "60 Minutes" that US-sponsored, UN sanctions had caused the deaths of an estimated half million Iraqi children. Albright, to her everlasting shame among civilized people, said it was worth it. Hillary (and Bill and Al) were in the White House when all of these deaths were occurring. Does Hillary (and Bill and Al) also think it was worth it? Would you vote for someone to be president who would answer in the affirmative? If so, what you would get won't be much different from the incumbent.

I have an unfavorable view of Hillary but you can bet your ass I'll vote for her in the general election against any of the morons running for the GOP. Are they factoring that into her favorability/unfavorability ratings? I think a lot of people generally have an unfavorable view of someone in the spotlight for as long as she has been. I don't think she's the lesser of two evils. I think we disagree on a few major things and agree wholeheartedly on 90% of things. The only GOP candidate with a prayer in Oregon is Giuliani and he's going to get mugged in the primary by the far right wackjobs.

Oh my yes, she is the lesser of two evils. Her DLC crap, pandering to the right with her silly anti-flag burning amendment and video game madness. Her absolute refusal to apologize for her iraq vote and more. And do we really want a monarchy? bush clinton bush clinton. c'mon, we can do much, much better than this.

Absolutely Hillary can win Oregon!!

Oregon's needs or what we all need: A woman President who can show a violent world Compasion. A woman who has vast experience in Health Care Someone who can solve the 'Health Care' crisis in the US. A strong proponent of Womens Rights. Plus: Bill Clinton can be an "Ambasador" to the world.

We need volunteers!....and we need donations. Please, everyone, the VAST right wing conspiracy is destroying us ALL. Only, Hillary has the experience and name recognition to fight for our rights.

Thank you, Ted S.

Oh my yes, she is the lesser of two evils.

Vote for the lesser evil and you still get evil.

A woman President who can show a violent world Compasion.

She was gung-ho for the war and will show the world compassion?

A woman who has vast experience in Health Care Someone who can solve the 'Health Care' crisis in the US.

After she made a monumental blunder with her attempt at solving the health care problem when she was co-president while excluding other people with an interest in the system and getting vital players hostile towards her?

You have to be kidding.

I will not vote for Hillary. Period. Although I really like Bill Clinton, and voted for him twice.

Bill Richardson would be my choice, but barring a lucky break I think John Edwards would have the best chance in Oregon of the "big three" Democrat candidates.

But one of the big issues with Hillary is that she is a Clinton. I know SO MANY moderate Republicans who absolutely HATE anything Clinton, and she will bring people out of the woodwork to support her.

Oh, and saying you would vote for her because she is a woman is just as bad as saying you would NOT vote for her because she is a woman. You should pick your candidate based on qualifications - not race, creed, sex, or religion.

No people, I am not "pdxattorney." I promise. Stop asking me.

Bill Richardson would be my choice, but barring a lucky break I think John Edwards would have the best chance in Oregon of the "big three" Democrat candidates.

In a previous thread I said I would vote for Bill Richardson but with reservations. After reading Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse" those reservations increased considerably and I would be very reluctant to vote for Richardson; although, I would find him much less objectionable than Hillary.

I'm a NAV, my wife says she is also, but keeps getting calls from the republican party. I took their last call. They are already fundraising by asking, "What would America look like if Hillary becomes President?"

My answewr was if she becomes President, the republicans have nobody to blame but themselves. Personally, I will not vote for her. I think that she is so polarizing that she would actually bring out many moderates to actively campaign against her.

With much trepidation, I intend to support Hilldog in both the Primary and the General, because I think she is (unfortunately) the best of any of the serious candidates.

All good D's will support the Nominee, even if it's her.

I keep hearing people say that Hillary is to hated and that they can't imagine people voting for her because she is "a Clinton". Interestingly, I know quite a few people who don't like anyone in the Bush family yet that didn't seem to be a concern for the republicans. Democrats, anyone who is popular enough to win our nomination can win our state.

If the democrats had been patient in '04 and allowed Edwards the chance to climb to the top of the ticket, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. We would be discussing his re-election campaign.

Seems to me that Hillary is too conservative to excite the base, but her image is too liberal to attract independents and Republicans.

Conversely, John Edwards is progressive enough to excite the base, but has a moderate image that will attract independents and Republicans.

Hillary will be the first woman ever nominated by a major party for President. She will excite the base of women and progressives in Oregon a lot better than another white-boy from the south.

As for the war. There is not a dimes worth of difference between the Democratic candidates about what they would do going forward. None of them are prepared to support an immediate and complete withdrawal.

That is a problem with part of the base in Oregon no matter who is the candidate. I have no doubt that some people will ignore the lesson of the last eight years and argue there is no difference between the Democrat and the Republican, regardless of who is nominated. But choosing a candidate to woo Nader voters is a fools errand.

You can put judicial appointments and gender aside. That is not what wins elections. For the average voter who doesn’t pay a dimes worth of attention to politics until Halloween in an election year, the question will come down to this:

Clinton: Unapologetically supported the war. Embraces the big money from big corporate lobbyists. McRomniani: Unapologetically support the war. Embraces the big money from big corporate lobbyists.

Where’s the difference? If we are lucky, they will stay home. If not, they are just as likely to say, “Hey, didn’t we already have a Clinton in the White House? Let’s try something different.” President Bloomberg anyone?

I will work my ass off to put any Dem in the White House…as long as it is not Her Hillaryness. That would be a lost cause, I am afraid.

if Edwards and Obama can't beat Hillary in the primary, then they can't beat the GOP nominee in the general. And right now, they are losing badly. The state polls in Iowa and NH are closer, but they have been trending Clinton for the past two months. Say what you will about Hillary, but she is running an almost flawless campaign and has assembled a team of pros. I am absolutely confident that she will be our nominee.

Can she win the general? Sure she can. Remember, the Carter campaign was rooting for Reagan to win the republican nomination in '80 because they thought he was too extreme and polarizing to win the general. Ooops.

If not, they are just as likely to say, “Hey, didn’t we already have a Clinton in the White House? Let’s try something different.”

And why would they want something different? The American people are pretty conservative in their choices, they aren't big risk takers. The Clinton era looks pretty good to a lot of people and one reason Hillary is being successful is because people remember it fondly. And not just democrats.

Clinton does not "support the war" any more than Edwards, Obama et. al. They are all saying pretty much the same thing about what to do next. Any one of the three is more likely to make some progress toward getting us out than the Republicans who are still fixated on victory.

if Edwards and Obama can't beat Hillary in the primary, then they can't beat the GOP nominee in the general.

Exactly. There are three solid candidates here. Any one of them would be better than any of the Republicans. There simply are no fatal flaws here. The one who wins the primaries will have shown they are going to do the best job in the general election as well.

Given that Hillary is ahead, we are going to continue to hear this message from supporters of other candidates. Just don't start believing it. Because it is really asking you to second-guess your own appraisal of which candidate you think will make the best President by imagining how you think others will react to them. And if enough people do that, we will end up with another John Kerry who "should" be able to win, instead of a candidate who does win.

i think that hilary clinton is the most qualified and would do the best job as president, to be honest. i'm also concerned that enough people (inexplicably) hate her badly enough in this country that the opposition will be mobilized against her & the democrats will lose the election.

i think she would probably carry oregon against a republican opponent, but the whole country? i'm not so sure.

(the above is 100% solicited opinion, nothing to back it up. worth exactly what you paid for it)

Will Hillary win Oregon? No. Why? She is too divisive and has too much baggage. Her candidacy will splinter the Democratic Party and be a gift to the republicans. I will not vote for Hillary and I know other women who feel the same. Like many other people this is not a rational decision. Logically, I disagree with her stances on the war in Iraq, but this decision does not come from my head. It comes from my heart and my gut. How many people like me will not only not vote Democrat but, may leave the Party entirely? There has to be a better choice. The Clintons had their time in the White House. Let us not spend months and months listening to the republicans remind us of the mistakes that were made during Bill Clinton’s Presidency. It is time to move forward.

I'm for Edwards, but I'd happily support Hillary if she ended up as our nominee. In fact, I'd vote for any Democrat on the menu before I'd support any Republican. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

pdxattorney is wrong. Democrats hold every statewide office except Smith's Senate seat, and not all of our Democrats are far-liberal. Centrists like Kitzhaber, Kulongoski, Hooley, who have been quite succesful, come to mind.

In fact, it seems to me Kulongoski is comparable to Hillary in terms of the perceived weaknesses pdxattorney attacks. Yes, it's possible for Hillary to lose, and I'm sure the Republicans will claim at first that Oregon and other states that went narrowly for Kerry are in-play, but the truth is that, even if the Democrat is "unpopular", the Republican candidate will lose anyway, because he will be even less popular than the Democrat--just like with Kulongoski's two Governor's contests.

The reason is that pdxattorney is also wrong about Oregon Republicans. They're not all libertarians. The ones in the Willamette Valley are, but the ones in the 2nd Congressional District are more in line with either the Pat Buchanan populists or the religious conservatives. Because of this, it is impossible to find a Republican who does not disappoint either the Valley or the rural south/east. Gordon Smith is the only Repub in the past decade to successfully straddle that gulf, and he was aided first by having a colorless Democratic opponent in 1996, who didn't act like he wanted the job, and second by a Republican wave year in 2002.

The real questions are not whether Hillary would win Oregon (I doubt her win would be less than 55%), but whether she'd make contests out of Missouri, Virginia, Arizona and other traditionally Republican states now showing blue trends; and whether she's provide the kind of coattails that would oust Smith and strengthen our legislative majority. Seems to me Edwards would be more likely to do those things, and would make a better President. But may the best Dem win the White House, regardless.

Never forget--the clear frontrunner for 2004 at this time was...Joe Lieberman.

Actually, no he wasn't. He was never really in the race. The clear frontrunner in 2004 at this point was Al Gore.

Kari's analysis is correct and if she somehow gets the nomination, I predict here and now that gordon smith will be re-elected.

Last night I attended and filmed most of the David Wu town hall meeting in Tigard. Although he has voted the way I want him to most of the time, I was frankly shocked at his arrogance and how he belittled the audience. But I was even more surprised at his stupidity. Most of the crowd was there over their concerns about the Constitution. Even more than Iraq. He lectured us about how impeachment must have a high bar..."crimes against the state", and that he sees no facts to indicate this. WTF?!!!!? The crowd was much less raucous than that at the Wyden town hall, but was just as angry. Sort of a suburban-norwegian-style seething. Lots of moms and grandmas, dads and grandpas, all asking him to uphold the Constitution. They made cogent arguments as to why they should be impeached...lying the country into a war, Valerie Plame, Fisa, Gitmo, torture, no-bid contracts, and more. None of this appeared to impress Mr. Wu.

He also proved himself totally out of touch with regard to health care. A very attractive, eloquent woman told him she had seen Michael Moore's Sicko, and asked what his position was on a national/universal health care plan. He hemmed and hawed for awhile, and finally said that the problem was "you see, people who HAVE health insurance really LOVE their plans. If they have Medicare, they LOVE it, if they have employer plans, they LOVE them." What planet are you on Mr. Wu? No, we don't love that our employers are shelling out 1,500 per family and yet we still have to pay $250 for scripts and crappy care. And we don't LOVE the fact that 1 in 6 of our neighbors have nothing. You, sir, are Out Of Touch with the people of Oregon District #1.

I'm wondering if the Democrats' shift to the center (well, the right most other places in the world) over the past couple of decades isn't going to hurt their chances in 2008 considering the recent leftward shift in public opinion that is likely to continue as the economy and the war worsen the lives of ordinary people.

They've tried to talk big since the 2006 election, but have achieved very little and have fallen in line behind Bush on the war and on warrantless wiretapping. Recent polls have shown the Democrat-controlled Congress getting significantly lower approval than President Bush, who is doing terribly himself, of course. I don't think the Democrats have realized how different public opinion is today vs. 2004 or even 2006, and I would not be surprised if a third party were able to take enough votes from them to threaten their bid for the Presidency.

The Green Party has been talking tough, and if they run a national campaign (and not the 2004 safe state strategy) calling for immediate withdrawal, single-payer healthcare, and other reforms, they could put the Dems on the hot seat and take enough votes from them to cause them to lose the Presidency. This would be particularly threatening for someone as Hawkish and generally conservative as Clinton. I'm not saying that the Greens could pose such a threat were the elections held tomorrow, but its unclear what effect another year of what the Democrats have been giving people since 2006 will have on public opinion (Cindy Sheehan giving up on the party is simply a visible example of a national trend amongst many progressives, and its likely to accelerate as the Democrats' betrayals of the base continue to mount).

Were the Democrats in Congress (some of whom are running for President) to take a principled stand against Bush on the war, the economy, health care, and domestic spying, making their positions clear, I believe they would be able to win the support of progressives, as well as a larger chunk of the 70% of Americans who oppose the war and a number of those (some 50% of Americans) who choose not to vote because there isn't a party standing up for their interests (I don't buy the apathy/ignorance line...people are smart enough to see that voting makes little difference in their lives. The Dems started Vietnam, the neo-cons gave us Iraq. Same sh*t different day). They won't do this, though, at least not without mass movements challenging them, because at the end of the day both parties serve the same interests: big business.

torridjoe has mail

If the democrats had been patient in '04 and allowed Edwards the chance to climb to the top of the ticket, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. We would be discussing his re-election campaign.

Edwards had a problem. He couldn't stand up to the DLC. they wanted him to vote for the war, his wife wanted him to vote against it. If he promises to listen to his wife in the future instead of the DLC, I'll consider him. Sometimes the wives come across as better candidates than the candidates. I felt that way about Theresa Heinz-Kerry in 2004 and am thinking the same about the Edwards.

As for the war. There is not a dimes worth of difference between the Democratic candidates about what they would do going forward. None of them are prepared to support an immediate and complete withdrawal.

BREAKING NEWS!! Dennis Kucinich just entered the presidential race several months ago and has been pushing to get the troops out of Iraq before the war started.

Any candidate who has to worry much about OR is unelectable. I never felt that Kerry would beat Bush because he was having to spend so much money/time in states like OR, IA, WI, MN, and PA, while essentially abandoning WV and MO, sattes that Bill Clinton won.

Bill CLinton carried OR by 10%+ twice and never had to worry about us. The fact that there is this doubt about Hillary's chances even in OR show what a weak national candidiate she would be.

I can assure you that Republicans all over the country are waiting with baited breath for Hillary to be nominated so they can immediately begin working towards her defeat. A Hillary nomination will do more for Republican turnout than any Republican candidate ever could.

2008 is shaping up to be the year when Americans should vote their conscience. Hillary vs Rudy. What's the difference? Which is the lesser evil? Tough choice there. Unless things changes substantially, I'll write in Nader, Kucinich or Paul. Paul with reservations.

I don't know about Ron Paul. I kind of like public education (although it could certainly be improved A LOT), one of the many services he'd like to get rid of. He proudly holds up his role as a prime sponsor of HR 300, which is aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade. He also wants to end birthright citizenship and lock down the border, doing "whatever it takes." Sure, he's against the war, but for reasons that are historically obselete.

Oh brother. Susan Palmer, Eugene Register Guard reporter, called the Portland Wyden meeting "unruly." Did she attend? People were passionate, but polite. No theatrics, no bra burnings, no thrown tomatoes. Crap, even the RG is full of shit.

torridjoe-

You obviously haven't spoken to many Republicans. The hatred of Hillary is almost fanatical, especially among the activists.

And the 04 phenomenon was interesting, especially given Bush's unpopularity among a significant portion of the electorate. But your theory doesn't account for the extreme lameness of John Kerry's campaign. He blew it, big time.

I don't know if Clinton could win Oregon, but I do NOT believe she can win the nationwide vote. She is absolutely HATED in many areas of the MidWest and South and those that don't hate her don't trust her. I know lifelong Dems, blue-collar all, who tell me they'd simply not vote before casting a vote for Clinton. Some feel she's too much of a politician--too much into the pockets of the lobbyists, some feel she projects a sense of entitlement and behaves like she's better than those around her (no "common man" touch), but most simply refer to an old Southern rule for choosing candidates--"would you trust them to watch your wallet while you left the room?". They don't. And many say they simply won't vote at all if Clinton is the candidate.

That's the real danger...not that the Dems will vote against her, but they'll simply stay home and not vote at all if she's the candidate.

On a personal note, I'll vote for her if she's the candidate, but only because she's the Dem on the ticket. I sure as hell am not going to work much for her. I'll focus more on Senate races and statewide races if she's the Presidential candidate.

Ron Paul has been a very conservative member of Congress and the Libertarian nominee for pres. He brags on his website that he was one of only four GOP congressmen to endorse Reagan over Ford in '76. Aside from the war, I can't beleive that any Dem. activist would find Paul appealing.

If Edwards and Obama can't beat Hillary in the primary, then they can't beat the GOP nominee in the general.

Lieberman lost his party nomination but won as an independent in a reelection to the Senate. Not a good argument against any other candidate for the primary.

I'm hearing all these people say that Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner but I don't know a single person who plans to vote for her in the primary. I know supporters for almost every other candidate.

I won't vote for someone who's main qualification for the job is that she was married to the President. That's simply pathetic. Oh, and she was on the Board of Directors for Walmart while he was governor of Arkansas, and she has an atrocious voting record screwing the poor and middle class, undermining the constitution and lately she's said she won't rule out nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

Who here plans to vote for her?

Could she win against a Republican? I don't know. It depends on whether a viable third party candidate comes forward or if Guiliani gets the nomination. I don't believe that Guiliani can win, even if Hillary Clinton runs.

Make that pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran, not Iraq.

Who here plans to vote for her?

I do, and with enthusiasm. The other day my wife had five of her girlfriends over for wine and a movie. Mind you, my wife is informed but very apolitical. She reads the front page of the newspaper, but groans and walks out of the room whenever I turn on one of the debates or "Hardball." I asked them who they were supporting for president and all but one said Clinton. The other was undecided but was also positive towards Clinton.

If, as you say, no one plans to vote for her, then why is she 20% up over Obama in national polls and reaching heights of 50% support in places like California? Who are these people?

They are the Democratic Party's bread and butter: union households, minority households, single women, the elderly, etc. Her support is trending upwards among almost every demographic in the democratic base with the exception of college professors and the blogosphere, and her negatives are going down.

I personally can't wait for us to elect our first female President in 2008 and I am proud it will be Hillary Clinton.

Here are the results of the first three days of the Clackamas County Fair which is held in Canby (home of Wayne Scott).

546 people have voted in the straw poll (not scientific)

38.3% for Clinton 26.2% for Edwards 19.8% for Obama 5.1% for Kucinich 4.0% for Richardson 3.5% for Biden 1.6% for Dodd 1.5% for Gravel

I think Clinton's popularity is based on her familiarity to voters. Everyone knows her name, what she looks like, and where she lived in the 1990's. Unless she gets an A+ in projecting sincerity, expect her numbers to fade as other candidates become better known.

I didn't add sites to substantiate my claims in the previous post. Here they are:

Sen. Clinton Crushes Rivals in CA
Poll: She has a 30-point lead over Obama in Calif., appealing to a wide range of voters. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/17/MNG7RJV1E1.DTL

Clinton Holds 20 Point National Lead A new CBS News national poll finds Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic presidential race with 45%, followed by Sen, Barack Obama at 25% and John Edwards at 14%. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/15/opinion/polls/main3170310.shtml

For those of you who think this is just a phenomenon of high name familiarity then please explain why Obama has lost a third of his support in California since March. Is he becoming less well known?

A few things here.... I watched part of the YouTube debate, and thought Hillary came across really well. Bear in mind that I'm a registered Republican who is certainly no fan of hers. IMHO, Hillary did a good job of coming across as polished, sincere and thoughtful. I would expect that, though, as she's been around for a while and has the best help money can buy. Obama was appealing before voters knew more about him. I think part of why Hillary's surging in the polls is because Obama has proven himself inexperienced on foreign policy issues (so you'd drink tea with Castro and Chavez, but bomb Pakistan? Really?) HIllary sounds nuanced on foreign policy, but she's a total hawk, don't kid yourselves. I imagine, then, that much of Hillary's newfound poll support may come from people who flirted with the idea of supporting Obama. Maybe she's won them back in the last few months by campaigning very well...I even found myself considering voting for her during parts of the YouTube debate, until I remembered it was her...

Can someone save me the suspense and tell me who to vote for here? I love the way this free-thinking forum anoints candidates and then goes into piling on mode on the others. Why dont we let TorridJoe take a few more minutes from the CoP job and tell us how to vote.

Unless things changes substantially, I'll write in Nader, Kucinich or Paul. Paul with reservations.

PLEASE, aren't we done with self-defeating choices like that? Elections are about winning. Parties are about helping us choose sides. The franchise is not an exercise in self-actualization -- it's about actually deciding who will get to run things for awhile. Have we forgotten so soon that Ralph Nader's candidacy begat George Bush's presidency?

Stephanie: You obviously ignored my point about there being practically no difference between Hillary and Rudy and that it is time to vote for principles. To put your point another way, if we have a choice between two evils we support the one we see as the lesser evil. We've been doing that for decades and we get the same choice every time. Choose the lesser of two evils. If we're lucky we get the lesser evil but still we get evil. It may not be Hillary and Rudy in 2008, but you can bet it will be the same choice as always. The lesser of two evils. It is time for the American people to say, "Enough!!" And, "None of the above."

You talk about elections being about winning. What do you mean by winning? You get your crook in office instead of the other person's crook?

As for Nader, I thought I might have shot that Nader-beat-Gore-and-put-Bush-in-office canard down in an earlier thread, but I guess with some people they'll go to their grave believing that rubbish. But, let me repeat it one more time: Gore lost because he and his campaign staff were a bunch of incompetents and ran a pathetic campaign.

Back to Hillary: If she is elected president you can be sure of one thing - the nation will remain divided.

Here are a couple questions I have about polls. First, the California poll that Brian cites above: “…involving 418 likely Democratic primary voters.” Is that a big enough sampling to be meaningful? And just what does “involving” mean? Did they actually get a response from all 418? (My interpretation of the poll details suggests not.) The CBS poll sampled 1214 persons, but admits up to an 8% m.o.e. for certain “subgroups”.

It seems to me that reporting on polls has the potential for influencing the masses as much as the polls themselves. I suspect that much of the “main stream media” (or whatever you want to call the corporate infotainment folks) would prefer to promote a candidate more likely to divide, and consequently, would be more newsworthy. Is that why we hear more about polls that show more favorable results for Hillary?

As anecdotal evidence of my skepticism, I offer this July 7 poll. In head to head match-ups, this one shows:

Democrat 49%, Republican 38% Giuliani (R) 50%, Clinton (D) 44% Clinton (D) 47%, F. Thompson (R) 45% Obama (D) 52%, Giuliani (R) 43% Obama (D) 56%, F. Thompson (R) 36%

While I like that one better than Brian’s, my final thought on this is: Polls, schmolls, I give more credence to trolls.

Sorry, not July 7. This was a July 15-18 poll, reported on July 26. http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/26/poll_obama_stronger_nominee_than_hillary

Sure she can win Oreg. This is a blue state and will vote blue no matter what. It will be a miracle if she does get elected President though - too many people hate her. How many people will be killed/raped directly by the Clinton admin is something that is the butt of jokes, and is also rooted in fact. Have they given up their mafia lifestyle? I am sure once they're back in power the IRS audits/rapes/murders of opponents will step up - are we ready for yet another round? I think people still have Clinton fatigue.....

but anybody who thinks there is no practical difference between Clinton and Giuliani is a blithering idiot.... and one that's at the lower end of the idiocy IQ range at that.

Well, let's look at what they have in common. They are enormously ambitious for themselves and will do practically anything with little or no regard for ethics to achieve the goals they have set for themselves - as they have in the past. They will both try to project images for themselves that they believe will get them elected even if they are contrary to reality. If one of them makes it to the White House, she or he will cater to the K Street lobbyists representing the major corporations that funded their campaigns. The unions supporting Hillary, if any, will get the usual heave ho after they have served their purpose. More NAFTA-like treaties for sweatshop operators. Rudy will be a disaster, but what could he do that would be worse than help promote and sustain the war in Iraq?

I said there is "practically no difference." lestadelc said there is "no practical difference," a difference in phrasing with a different meaning. "Practically no difference" as careful readers will recognize implies a basic similarity but allows for practical differences. Sure, they have practical differences. Which big money interests they choose to get in hock to would be one. In this case there would be practically no difference. They would have something in common - an obligation to cater to special interests and not the people.

Thank you for the elegant display of debating etiquette in your comments. It helps keep the debate on a civilized and mature basis and prove my other point about how divisive Hillary can be.

Since when are Oregon Republicans "Libertarian" in outlook? Not for a long time!! The religious right controls the Republican party in Oregon. That's why they have become a minority party now. That's why they have the social conservative positions in their platform. I'm amazed at how much this discussion is based on outdated information or uninformed opinion. Current national polling has Hillary beating all Repugs, likewise Obama and Edwards. Her unfavorables have been coming down in recent weeks. Dems who don't like her will suck it up when the time comes.

Bill, would these be the same pollsters that were declaringa Kerry victory based on exit polliing back in 2004?

Both parties in Oregon are controlled by their respective extremists. There is a reason the NAV is really the largest group of voters here in our state.

nutmeg,

You say the Ds and Rs are controlled by their extremists. Others say say there is no real difference between Ds and Rs. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere between those opinions.

If you look at the matter from a historical viewpoint, Rs certainly are much more anti-government, anti-tax, and anti-environment than they were a quarter century ago. I really don't see much change in Democratic positions over that time. Do you? Personally, I've always regarded the Democratic Party in Oregon as to the right of me.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!!

The pendulum has begun it's swing in the '06, and despite the Democrats lack of numbers to force a withdrawal, a fact that will not be hidden for very long to the voters are that Democrats alone standing up for our civil liberties, and constitutional rights! Each time a vote has been on the floor of both houses it's been Democrats voting against the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and revisions of the FISA Law, no Republicans ever!!

Republicans have been driving the Iraqi War, corruption of governance, and divisiveness in our society fueled by insane tax policy aimed at destroying the middle-class to insure an all powerful corporate/wealth class in control of political power nationally! American Fascism!

I do believe at a gut level across a super majority of Americans no longer recognize America as a freedom loving nation, and have recognized the Republican distortion of our constitution, honor, and civil liberties as well as the vast divide of "haves" and "have-nots" as a real threat for us all!

I believe that if we as freedom loving Americans of either party stay active with the simplest principle of restoring our constitutional form of representative democracy, the middle-class, and responsible governance, we as a nation will restore a strong Democratic majority in both houses, and a Democratic Presidency!

Save Democracy, be a good Republican, and Vote for a Democrat!!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

Each time a vote has been on the floor of both houses it's been Democrats voting against the Patriot Act,...

When the US Senate first voted for the Patriot Act all but Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted for the Patriot Act. The vote was 99-1. If I recall correctly, there were only very few in the House that voted against it. From what I understand, nobody even read or studied it before the vote.

The vote was 99-1 // a Democrat,never the less!!

The re-authorization, and expansion of the Patriot Act that included the McNulty addition to allow the appointment of US Attorneys without Senate confirmation included the following true patriots!

1. Senator Russell D. Feingold, Wi.
2. Senator James Jeffords, Vt.
3. Senator Daniel Akaka, Hi.
4. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Nm.
5. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Wv.
6. Senator Tom Harkin, Ia.
7. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Vt.
8. Senator Carl Levin, Mi.
9. Senator Patty Murray, Wa.
10. Senator Ron Wyden, Or.

ALL DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

"Give me liberty, or give me death," Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

"Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead," Senator Jim Bunning, R.-Ky. on the Senate floor February 28, 2006!

In the day Patrick Henry was a respected revolutionary leader, Quaker, and spokesman for the greatest human experiment that we call the United States of America, he had risked all to help invent, protect, and then preserve civil liberties of men as a matter of principle with the constant threat of death for treason to the crown!

He presumed from centuries of religious fervor and greed of a aristocracy in Euorpe which produced the Dark Ages, that government should now and forever be subservient to it's citizens if it were to be anything like civilized.

Today, we have a hard-throwing lefthanded, pampered baseball player with all the privileges society could possibly offer, drop to his knees to tell the nation that civil liberties must be sacrificed because he is to frightened to protect, or preserve these same liberties that his counter-part, but certainly not equal, would presume to lay his life!

I want to know what in the Patriot Act has served to protect us so much better than the constitutional laws that have functioned for the past 230 years to protect us?

I want to know what security we are getting for our surrender of civil liberties that make our lives worth the living to begin with?

I want to know why a pair of draft-dodgers should be allowed to fabricate cause for a foreign war for political gain, and use this very crime to undermine our civil liberties earned with the blood of true patriots of the past, present?

I want to know where our patriots are! I want to know how cowardice and greed became virtues of America's Democracy?

I want to know what the Republican does with their conscience when they go to the polls to cast a vote to end American Democracy!

I want to know how a Republican can live with themselves when our form of government is indistinguishable to a Franco Dictatorship!

SAVE DEMOCRACY, BE A GOOD REPUBLICAN, AND VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

Stephanie V. asks, "Have we forgotten so soon that Ralph Nader's candidacy begat George Bush's presidency?"

You seem to have forgotten (or never knew) that Gore won, and that he failed to fight for his victory. The evidence is so overwhelming that Gore even admits it now. Even if he hadn't won, Gore, like Kerry, ran an inept, right-wing militarist campaign, including threats to remove Saddam from power. He didn't even carry his own state, and not because of Nader. Anyway, it was Gore who shouldn't have been the spoiler against Nader, a far superior human being as well as a better candidate.

Regarding Bill Bodden's question about whether Bill and Hillary agreed with Madelyn Albright:

The actual quote from Albright was, "We think the price is worth it". Bill and Hillary not only thought that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children were "worth the price"; they also thought that the thousands of Sudanese who died from a lack of pharmaceuticals when they blew up the al Shifa factory (and failed to pay reparations) was worth another price. Molly Ivins referred to Clinton's bombing of Baghdad as "terrorism". And don't get me started on East Timor or Yugoslavia.

Hillary Clinton would make a good Republican candidate, better than the ten stooges who are running for them now. I recommend that those Democrats who support her change their registration to Republican and invite Hillary to then represent them.

After not commenting for a few days and just reading I wanted to bring this up. Half the comments say Hillary panders to the right. Go to any right winger blog and they cry about how liberal Hillary is. So is she really pandering or does she build consensus with Republicans? I'm personally about to vomit because it looks like so many Dems have taken the Karl Rove strategy and think 51% is how you should govern. 51% likes your ideas and the other 49% hates them. I'd be a lot happier if 68% of the country was happy which is where it was when Bill left office. Remember that and keep it in the back of your head. She's married to the most popular President in the history of polls since he left office. A quick wikipedia check will tell you this.

Oh and a quick lesson to all of you that are mad she won't rule out a nuclear first strike. She probably personally has ruled out a nuclear first strike against Iran as have every sane person running for office. The problem is YOU DON'T TELL AN ENEMY YOU AREN'T GOING TO HIT THEM HARD. That's just how foreign policy works. Now as much as I'd like us to make nice with Iran idealogically that probably won't happen. We meddled with their country too much in the past for us to make nice nice anytime soon. The next President will have to be fair but firm with Iran. I don't think any sane person would opt to use nuclear weapons in a first strike especially against a state that doesn't have nuclear weapons. I don't even think Bush is that dumb.

Stephanie V says: Bottom line: anyone who considers himself or herself a progressive should just suck it up and vote Democratic in 2008 and for the foreseeable future. It is going to take a generation to get back to where we should be.

This is an argument that is intellectually, but unfortunately not politically, obselete. Lesser-evilism has been the dominant political strategy of progessives in election years for decades. During these decades, Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over the erosion of civil liberties, civil rights, unions, access to abortion, and social services. Bill Clinton, the lesser-evil of 1992 1996 (who betrayed his supposed base by ignoring his progressive campaign promises in order to serve his true base, corporate America) made regime change in Iraq US policy and laid the groundwork for Bush's attack on civil liberties such as habeas corpus with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

As others have pointed out above by referencing the 99-1 bipartisan Senate vote for the Patriot Act, the Bush regime's policies have received consisent support from Democrats. Even now, leading Democrats (like Hillary) do not take issue with Bush's policies, only their failure. The most generous assessment (waaaayyyy too generous, in my opinion) of the lack of opposition on the part of the Democrats to Bush's policies is that they are afraid of appearing "soft" on terrorism, and simply went along with Bush in order not to risk hurting their chances in future elections.

This is an easy decision for them to make, because the costs of ignoring people who subscribe to a politics of lesser-evilism and will therefore vote for the Democrats practically no matter what they do are slim to none. Now, its been argued above that elections are about "winning." Well, what happens when/if the Democrats win the Presidency in 2008? This is where it gets Orwellian: "we can stand up for what we believe in (pinky swear, we're really concerned about you!) now because if we do the Republicans will accuse us of being (blank) in 2010 and 2012, and you don't want them back in power, do you? Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

As long as the left continues to subscribe to the politics of lesser-evilism and to avoid pressuring the Democrats by voting for a third party, the Democrats will continue to give us Republican Lite, less and less distinguishable from the real thing. It's like alcoholics convincing themselves that drinking light beer is somehow better than regular: in the end they still end up drunk, broke, and out on their asses.

In order to get where we need to be, we need to do what people did in the 1930s (labor movement) and 1960s (women's, civil rights, anti-war movements): organize grassroots opposition to both parties. As mentioned above, Hillary is an opportunist, a trait all Democrats (and Republicans) must share in order to get to a position of power within the two-party structure. The only thing opportunists understand is a threat to their position of power. The only way we'll get to where we should be is by making the cost to the Democrats of betraying the left more than the gains they get from shifting to the right: we have to stop voting for them. That's a first step and by no means sufficient, in my opinion, but a necessary step nonetheless.

Dan Grady says: I want to know how a Republican can live with themselves when our form of government is indistinguishable to a Franco Dictatorship!

This type of hyperbole is absurd and only serves to further the losing strategy of lesser-evilism. If Bush and the rest of the Republicans are fascist, than we should do anything (besides supporting another fascist) to get them out of power, even supporting a party (the Democrats) that does not represent our interests.

Fortunately, we don't live under fascism. For example, under fascism the government would track down those of us posting on this forum and torture and/or kill us. I'm a socialist, and I organize openly as such. Under fascism, I would be killed on sight. Under fascism, all dissent is unflinchingly crushed in the most brutal manner imagineable. Certainly, there is severe repression in the US today, but it's not worse than that experienced during the Palmer Raids under Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat who signed the Epionage and Sedition acts, which would make Bush jealous) or McCarthyism, encouraged by Harry Truman (another Dem) with Executive Order 9835 (loyalty reviews for federal employees). Even Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.

The point is, what Bush is doing is not particularly unique in US history, and its certainly not anywhere near fascism. Of course, he and his policies need to be opposed, but the way to do that (if you want to be effective) is not to support the party that laid the groundwork for (under Clinton) and then supported and enabled the policies you liken to fascism. It's just good old "democracy" American style, which can be repressive and brutal indeed.

Correction: The line at the end of the fourth paragraph should read

"we can't (not can) stand up for what we believe..."

From Garrett: Oh and a quick lesson to all of you that are mad she [Hillary] won't rule out a nuclear first strike. She probably personally has ruled out a nuclear first strike against Iran as have every sane person running for office. The problem is YOU DON'T TELL AN ENEMY YOU AREN'T GOING TO HIT THEM HARD. That's just how foreign policy works

Maybe under the Bush administration with their amateur hour dipolomacy.

By threatening Iran with nuclear weapons, Democrats are playing into the hands of neocons in the push for another senseless war.

The U.S. never threatened a first strike against the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war so now it's okay to threaten a distant nation that hasn't done anything close to what Saudi Arabia has done in training, arming, and supplying terrorists?

Take a look at Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) membership and think about what an invasion of Iran could mean in a worst case scenario. Ratcheting up the macho war posturing doesn't solve anything.

Invading Iran makes no more sense than invading India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel or any other country that's violating the non-proliferation treaty. Can't we get some intelligence in our foreign policy for a change? It's not statemanship to threaten a country that can't hurt us w/ annihilation. It's childish and self-defeating. I expect better from the Democratic candidates. (And some did respond better)

Sorry about the bolded text above. I'm not sure how that happened, I did a preview and it didn't look like that.

Garrett said: "YOU DON'T TELL AN ENEMY YOU AREN'T GOING TO HIT THEM HARD..."

Telling the population of a sovereign nation that has not attacked you that you would "not rule out" nuking them is TERRORISM.

The way to understand this, since you obviously do not, is to imagine that the leading "liberal" candidate for the presidency of France announced that she would not rule out nuking the U.S. because Bush was seen as antithetical to French "interests".

Stephanie V:

Blaming Nader for Gore's non-loss has now reached urban legend status. Your analysis should include the fact that 12% of registered Democrats voted for BUSH (!) while less than 2% voted for Nader. Bush Democrats are thus responsible for Gore's non-loss. As for New Hampshire, based on the exit polling data, less than half of those Nader votes would have gone to Gore if Nader hadn't been in the race, so Bush would still have won.

What's sophistry is to contend that a truly progressive candidate caused the election of a truly reactionary one by running against him. If Gore had run as a progressive, your "spoiler" argument might have some merit, but he ran as a neoliberal hawk, and he deserved to lose, even if he didn't. And you are setting yourself up for another debacle if you insist on supporting another neoliberal hawk in '08.

"Such is the sorry state of political analysis, not to mention statistical interpretation, and such is the pathetic state of the Democratic Party: so desperate to avoid admitting its own mistakes that it would prefer to attack a large segment of its progressive base, chastising them like misbehaving children, as if somehow that will bring them back to the fold. Not likely. And not a very smart move." (Tim Wise, http://www.zmag.org/fall_guy.htm)

You obviously ignored my point about there being practically no difference between Hillary and Rudy and that it is time to vote for principles.

Let me suggest that only people who lack any real principles vote for principles. You have to be able look Iraqi's in the eye and say "what are the lives of a few of your friends and loved ones compared to my principles?" You need to be able to do the same to the parents of children who die for lack of adequate health care. You can't vote for principles because elections have real consequences for some people. And your principles are just barren abstract ideas.

The only time you can possibly vote for principles is when your vote doesn't matter anyway. Because, any other time, voting for "principles" is unprincipled narcissism.

Ross says: You can't vote for principles because elections have real consequences for some people. And your principles are just barren abstract ideas.

Principles are not barren abstract ideas. They refer to a set of ideas or moral standards that are a guide to action. Hillary stood idly by while her husband's administration championed sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children. I don't see how you can argue that someone who had as much of a public voice as the First Lady and sat back and watched the President support policies of genocide is likely to pursue policies (any more than Rudy would) that save lives at the expense of American ruling class interests. Approximately the same number of Iraqis died as a result of US policy during Bill's time in office as have during Bush's, and the sanctions destroyed the infrastructure in Iraq, amplifying the effects of Bush's war. Considering Hillary's views and record, I don't see much of a reason to expect much different from her.

As far as her putting people before profits and giving health care, fat chance. Hillary is in the pocket of the health care industry. She is the #2 recipient of campaign contributions from them.

Perhaps the fact that the two-party system gives us no better than a choice between two dishonest, bloodthirsty war-mongers is a sign that those of us who have principles should seek to change it rather than throwing up our hands and buying into the same tired logic that keeps it going.

torridjoe:

First of all, Madelyn Albright's figures agree with mine. Maybe you should tell Madelyn Albright that she shouldn't have believed that 500,000 dead children were worth the price, since "only" 175,000 dead children were worth the price.

Secondly, when I followed your link, I was immediately struck by the fact that the study you referred me to states, "...this report focuses exclusively on deaths among children under five years of age."

So your reprehensible argument appears to be that since "only" 175,000 children under 5 years of age were killed, therefore Bill and Hillary weren't as bad as Bush?

Paul: "The question is who the Nader voters were going to defect to--Bush?"

No. You Democrats were the ones who defected to Bush. Your calling this a "fallacious" argument is fallacious. The fact is, if you care, that Nader supporters like me would not have voted for Gore or Bush. You may not believe that, but I guarantee that we will do the same thing this next election if you nominate someone as vile as Hillary.

Why Hillary endorsed the Surge

Posted August 21, 2007 | 10:24 PM (EST) Huffington Post - By Senator Mike Gravel

In an attempt to please an audience of veterans yesterday, Hillary Clinton said the surge was "working" and gave a helping-hand to the Bush spin machine, Pentagon dead-enders and right-wing pundits who have already begun to quote her.

"Of course the surge is working," they'll say, "even Hillary Clinton acknowledges that!" Just when Congressional Democrats were beginning to grow spines and stand up against the war, Hillary has cut them off at the knees.

As always Hillary tried to have it both ways and went on to say: "We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war." I'm not sure what she meant by that, but I do know the surge is not working.

Whatever success we might achieve in Bagdad is temporary and isolated. We've just nudged the terrorists and death squads to other parts of Iraq. If you want to know the truth about the surge, look at the numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians killed and the number of people fleeing the country this summer. In both cases the numbers have remained fairly steady.

In January, before the surge, bombings in Baghdad killed 438 people. After the surge began in February, that number jumped to 520, declined in March to 323 and rose again in April, to 414. The lowest total came in June with just 190 dead, but then swung back up last month, with 354 dead. And that's just Baghdad.

Some Americans, like Hillary, might find those numbers encouraging but the majority of Iraqis view us as an inept occupation force that has failed to keep them safe from terrorism, ethnic cleansing and violent crime. That's why they continue to abandon their homes and families to join millions of their countrymen in refugee camps in Jordan and Syria.

General Petraeus' September report will of course paint a different picture. He'll offer the same cheerleading that we always hear from Bush's media savvy, but militarily clueless generals. We, in the anti-war movement, will counter his lies with facts and try to push the cowardly congressional Dems and wavering Republicans to cut off funding. But thanks to Hillary our task will be more difficult.

After yesterday's speech, Clinton aides tried to clarify her remarks, saying she was specifically referring to increased cooperation from Sunnis battling insurgents in Al Anbar province. But that clarification was too little too late. Unless Hillary publicly reverses herself and personally calls the surge an overall failure, Bush's allies in the media and the Congress will have the cover they need to impede any funding cuts next year.

Endorsing the surge is another example of how Hillary is adopting Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy. After securing the Democratic base, the Clintons always sacrifice their allies to the Right. (Remember Sister Souljah?) Last week Hillary sand-bagged the LGBT community with her states rights argument against gay marriage. This week she throws the anti-war movement under the bus. I'm curious to see who's going to be next week's victim

In 1996 UNICEF estimated that 500,000 Iraqi children under 5 years had died as a result of the sanctions. Later estimates lowered that number, but by 1999, after three more years of sanctions, UNICEF was confident enough to use the 500,000 figure again.

Steven Maurer: The point is truth. Madelyn Albright, speaking for the Clinton Administration, specified that 500,000 dead Iraqi children, caused by the sanctions, were "worth the price". If you disagree with her, then perhaps you should criticize her for "Clinton bashing".

We need a truth and reconciliation movement in this country that will accurately address the bipartisan reality of empire by this country.

Try reading this as a start: http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm

This article attempts to answer the question, “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” It estimates 20 to 30 million deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.

I'd love to say good things about Clinton as a Democratic president, but it's difficult to spin the sanctions on Iraq to make them look anything but murderous. A few points:

• Iraq was not a third world nation in 1991. Political freedom was nil, as was freedom of speech. Opposing the Baathists was simply not allowed, but education, health care, and general standard of living were quite good by Middle East standards.

• The 500,000 deaths of children under 5 years were EXCESS deaths above the rate before sanctions were imposed. That's a lot of dead kids.

• Poverty IS the chief killer of children, and that is what sanctions caused in Iraq. Safe drinking water was unattainable, medicines and operational medical equipment were hard to find. Nutrition suffered.

Portlander Dan Handelman, a friend of mine, witnessed the horrendous conditions in Iraq when he took medical supplies to Iraq - an act that caused him much trouble with the US government. Look him up if you would like a firsthand account.